The definitive CO2 thread....
Tim Lamb
the discussion:-)
Perhaps someone could kick off with the broad facts about CO2
production: be it natural or man made.
The Daily Telegraph tells me that air travel contributes 3% to the total
but doesn't explain if that is 3% of human output or?
The peat soils of the Fens have been quietly oxidising for centuries but
does this *swamp* the output of flue gas from the electricity
consumption of the residents?
Why is Methane so much worse? Do clouds help or hinder? Nice demo of
vapour trail spread recently. High level spiral over Dogged Bank
eventually spread to cover most of SE England.
It would be nice if contributors to the *Pat google file* could avoid
responding to his sallies in this thread?
regards
--
Tim Lamb
Pat Gardiner
It would be wise for all of you to cease responding to me in any
thread. That includes you.
Somebody might have the decency to warn Charles not to post under
misleading headers. I don't think he is in any way involved and is
probably a completely innocent victim of your conspiracies.
--
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release and independently audit the results of testing British pigs
for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com and http://animal-epidemics.blogspot.com/
>regards
Buddenbrooks
"Tim Lamb" <t...@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4V5oPqCK...@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk...
> As I know very little about the subject I feel fully qualified to open the
> discussion:-)
>
> Perhaps someone could kick off with the broad facts about CO2 production:
> be it natural or man made.
>
> The Daily Telegraph tells me that air travel contributes 3% to the total
> but doesn't explain if that is 3% of human output or?
>
There seems to be a conspiracy to hide any counter argument and even
arguments for are presented in a manner to hide raw data and
one is expected to accept 'reputable scientists' analysis. Which in a court
would be judging the guilt of the accused on the basis that the prosecution
solicitor is highly trained
and claims guilt. No witnesses as the jury is not qualified to interpret raw
data.
I spent the first 20 years of my life being told a single Java style
volcanic event would throw the planet back to the ice age.
I am really happy to follow much of the recommendations because they cover
clear and demonstrate able problems of resource depletion and pollution.
I just can't get a grip on one week it is a 2C rise by 2050 and the figures
are accepted by 'them wot know' and then it is 6C as another set of figures
come in.
The governments of the world are about to spend trillions on measures and
set up horrendous beurocracies with an insufficient understanding or model
of what is happening.
It is not good enough to take a worse case position based on insufficient
information as a 'safe option' because the impact on world economies could
plunge us into poverty
and the starvation of billions as aid and welfare dry up.
The problem with global warming is that it has already generated thousands
of influential scientists and politicians whose career depends on global
warming.
A bit like asking a committee of Bishops to decide on the existence of God.
Old Codger
>
> "Tim Lamb" <t...@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4V5oPqCK...@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk...
>> As I know very little about the subject I feel fully qualified to
>> open the discussion:-)
>>
>> Perhaps someone could kick off with the broad facts about CO2
>> production: be it natural or man made.
>>
>> The Daily Telegraph tells me that air travel contributes 3% to the
>> total but doesn't explain if that is 3% of human output or?
>>
>
> There seems to be a conspiracy to hide any counter argument and even
> arguments for are presented in a manner to hide raw data and one is
> expected to accept 'reputable scientists' analysis. Which in a court
> would be judging the guilt of the accused on the basis that the
> prosecution solicitor is highly trained and claims guilt. No
> witnesses as the jury is not qualified to interpret raw data.
I think the biggest concern regarding the leaked e-mails is not the
alleged attempts at manipulating data but the failure, allegedly
including a threat to destroy, to release the raw data which would
permit proper peer review by opposing, or even open minded, scientists.
> I spent the first 20 years of my life being told a single Java style
> volcanic event would throw the planet back to the ice age.
I recall the general opinion appeared for many years to be that a new
ice age was coming and I dare say the winters of 1947 and 1963 would
have been used to support that assertion. I don't recall being told
that a single, or even multiple, major volcanic event would lead to an
ice age but I do believe that a major eruption can affect the climate
over much of the earth for years.
> I am really happy to follow much of the recommendations because they
> cover clear and demonstrate able problems of resource depletion and
> pollution.
It is just common sense to conserve resources, whatever ones opinions on
global warming or its cause. I don't believe that technology can come
to our aid in providing alternative resources for ever, even if we do
ultimately have access to the resources on other planets.
> I just can't get a grip on one week it is a 2C rise by 2050 and the
> figures are accepted by 'them wot know' and then it is 6C as another
> set of figures come in.
I can accept that global warming and cooling can happen. It has in the
past and is likely to do so again. I can accept that data in recent
years, but perhaps not at this moment, suggests that we might be in a
period of warming. I can accept that man may be, indeed probably is,
contributing to this warming. What I find difficult to accept is that
man is the prime, or even a major, cause for this warming.
> The governments of the world are about to spend trillions on measures
> and set up horrendous beurocracies with an insufficient
> understanding or model of what is happening.
>
> It is not good enough to take a worse case position based on
> insufficient information as a 'safe option' because the impact on
> world economies could plunge us into poverty and the starvation of
> billions as aid and welfare dry up.
>
> The problem with global warming is that it has already generated
> thousands of influential scientists and politicians whose career
> depends on global warming. A bit like asking a committee of Bishops
> to decide on the existence of God.
Governments see global warming as a "no blame" tax raising prospect and
therefore have a vested interest in supporting the global warming
bandwagon. You will know when they really do believe because they will
start investing in moving the infrastructure out of London.
In the Telegraph this week Charles Moore reviewed a book that I hope to
get for Christmas. If not I will buy in the New Year. It is called "An
Appeal to Reason" by Nigel Lawson (about �7 I think at Amazon). The
review is at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/6706761/Nigel-Lawson-on-climate-change-Saving-the-planet-will-be-the-real-disaster.html
(watch the wrap)
Nigel Lawson appears to have come to the conclusion that, even if the
worst that is predicted happens, we and the developing world will be only a
bit less better off than we would otherwise have been and that mankind
in general will cope with the changes. I am told he also says the
science is probably bad, the economics definitely is and if we halt
economic development in the name of climate change the world's poor will
suffer even more than if we continue to produce CO2.
I have also been recommended to a book which is a free download, over
300 pages, entitled Sustainable Energy - without the hot air.
http://www.withouthotair.com/download.html. Have download it but not
yet read any. The book can also be purchased, �20 in paperback or �45
in hardback.
This is going to run and run. It will be interesting to follow provided
governments do not cause a catastrophe by trying to do too much to save
the world.
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
Steve Firth
> Perhaps someone could kick off with the broad facts about CO2
> production: be it natural or man made.
Hmm, how long is a piece of string?
FWIW, in another newsgroup I questioned a cyclist's assertion that his
use of a bicycle contributes no CO2 emissions. If the figures for energy
consumption while cycling quoted by a cycling pressure group are correct
then cycling uses 1200 kcal/hour. That equates to CO2 production of
500g/hour or 25g/km if the cyclist manages to average 20kph (about
12mph). Apologies for the mixed units, but I still tend to think in mph
for road travel.
Now 25g/km might sound low, but a Ford Fiesta car with a 1.6L
turbocharged diesel engine manages 98g/km with five people aboard.
That's 19.6g/passenger-km, less than a cyclist produces.
> The Daily Telegraph tells me that air travel contributes 3% to the total
> but doesn't explain if that is 3% of human output or?
It will be 3% of all fossil fuel consumption.
Oh No
>As I know very little about the subject I feel fully qualified to open
>the discussion:-)
>
>Perhaps someone could kick off with the broad facts about CO2
>production: be it natural or man made.
I can't really give facts, because I have a memory like a sieve, and I
simply can't be bothered to google up all the references I have looked
up over the last few years, and in any case, as I will explain, all the
"facts" are dodgy as hell. However I do have some sort of scientific
background, and I have done some investigation, and I think my overall
assessment is not too far wrong.
>
>The Daily Telegraph tells me that air travel contributes 3% to the
>total but doesn't explain if that is 3% of human output or?
I would think 3% of human output. I believe the biggest single creation
of man made CO2 is nothing to do with modern technology. Peat fires in
the Philippines (the traditional method of cooking) account for about
25% of man made production.
>
>The peat soils of the Fens have been quietly oxidising for centuries
>but does this *swamp* the output of flue gas from the electricity
>consumption of the residents?
I doubt it.
>
>Why is Methane so much worse?
Its to do with the structure and complexity of the molecule. Each type
of gas absorbs certain bands of radiation. H20 probably absorbs more
than anything else, but it is said that H20 absorption is already
saturated - more H20 in the atmosphere makes no difference. Not strictly
true over deserts of course (which is why they are so cold at night).
How much of the world is desert, not forgetting the Gobi?
Exact figures are not possible. CO2 accounts for probably about 2-3% of
the greenhouse effect. Manmade C02, probably less than 1%. At this point
the case for manmade global warming starts to look weak, but then comes
the claim, completely unsupported, that it might be enough to trigger an
instability, runaway warming.
>Do clouds help or hinder?
Now there's the rub. Its not at all simple. Clouds at night keep things
warm. Clouds by day keep things cool. It makes a difference how high the
cloud is, and at what latitude. One thing I think is pretty clear, even
from daily experience, clouds have a much greater effect than anything
else. That's where the climate models fall over. We don't know how to
model cloud formation. This means the models are nonsense, and should
rightly be treated as a laughing stock. Ultimately off course, the whole
climate change bandwagon was started because Margaret Thatcher put a
great deal of money into buying computers and scientists to produce
models to prove her hobby horse.
Now, if the earth warms, there will be more evaporation from the oceans,
more moisture in the air, and one would think more cloud formation.
Overall one would think this increases the albedo effect, and that the
primary result is to reduce heating by the sun (the heat must arrive
before it can be trapped and cause warming). It seem to me that this
mechanism could be expected to override all others, and create a natural
stabilising influence on global temperature. Remember we do not have any
decent models for this, so no real conclusions can be drawn.
Another thing they don't like to let on. There has been no warming over
the last ten years, and we only have reasonably reliable measurements of
global temperature for less than twenty years previously. Nowhere near
enough data to draw any conclusions on a system as complex as climate
imv.
Also a rough calculation showed that the measured increase of CO2 in the
atmosphere is actually only about 1/4 of man made production. Where has
all the excess CO2 gone? As far as I can see, there is only one place it
can have gone. It has been absorbed by the oceans. If so, then the rate
of absorption by the oceans is much greater that the climate scientists
would have you believe. The oceans are in fact capable of absorbing man
made CO2 fairly rapidly.
Now, the warmer the oceans, the less CO2 they absorb. In other words
there is an obvious mechanism by which global warming causes a rise in
CO2 - not the other way about. This has been observed it the records
going back through the ice age cycle.
In short, the best summary I can give is to quote Buddenbrooks:
"The problem with global warming is that it has already generated
thousands of influential scientists and politicians whose career depends
on global warming. A bit like asking a committee of Bishops to decide on
the existence of God."
In the meantime the concentration on CO2 means we are taking our eye off
the ball. The world has real problems to do with pollution and
conservation, ultimately caused by population, and we are not dealing
with them because of the attention paid to CO2.
Consider, for example, instead the potential effect of the threatened
extinction of the bee, due to destruction of habitat, insecticides,
infestation with mites from other parts of the world, etc. In fifty
years we may find that our crops are not being fertilised. How will we
get on then?
Regards
--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
braces)
Old Codger
<about global warming>
Thank you Charles.
I know your post supports my prejudice but you have given me a few new
(to me) details.
Tim Lamb
<No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> writes
>Thus spake Tim Lamb <t...@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk>
>>As I know very little about the subject I feel fully qualified to open
>>the discussion:-)
>>
>>Perhaps someone could kick off with the broad facts about CO2
>>production: be it natural or man made.
>
>I can't really give facts, because I have a memory like a sieve, and I
>simply can't be bothered to google up all the references I have looked
>up over the last few years, and in any case, as I will explain, all the
>"facts" are dodgy as hell. However I do have some sort of scientific
>background, and I have done some investigation, and I think my overall
>assessment is not too far wrong.
My word, you all have been busy while I was galivanting around London
today:-)
Fuel cells, super conducting motors, algal oil, my turbo diesel Fiesta
balances 4 cyclists (the *frugality* meter is stuck on 57mpg) and many
other interesting comments.
>>
>>The Daily Telegraph tells me that air travel contributes 3% to the
>>total but doesn't explain if that is 3% of human output or?
>
>I would think 3% of human output. I believe the biggest single creation
>of man made CO2 is nothing to do with modern technology. Peat fires in
>the Philippines (the traditional method of cooking) account for about
>25% of man made production.
How so? Do they set fire to the land to fry breakfast?
>>
>>The peat soils of the Fens have been quietly oxidising for centuries
>>but does this *swamp* the output of flue gas from the electricity
>>consumption of the residents?
>
>I doubt it.
>>
>>Why is Methane so much worse?
>
>Its to do with the structure and complexity of the molecule. Each type
>of gas absorbs certain bands of radiation.
Ah.
> H20 probably absorbs more
>than anything else, but it is said that H20 absorption is already
>saturated - more H20 in the atmosphere makes no difference. Not strictly
>true over deserts of course (which is why they are so cold at night).
I once vaguely understood black body radiation.
>How much of the world is desert, not forgetting the Gobi?
Lots?
>
>Exact figures are not possible. CO2 accounts for probably about 2-3% of
>the greenhouse effect. Manmade C02, probably less than 1%. At this point
>the case for manmade global warming starts to look weak, but then comes
>the claim, completely unsupported, that it might be enough to trigger an
>instability, runaway warming.
>
>
>>Do clouds help or hinder?
>
>Now there's the rub. Its not at all simple. Clouds at night keep things
>warm. Clouds by day keep things cool. It makes a difference how high the
>cloud is, and at what latitude. One thing I think is pretty clear, even
>from daily experience, clouds have a much greater effect than anything
>else. That's where the climate models fall over. We don't know how to
>model cloud formation. This means the models are nonsense, and should
>rightly be treated as a laughing stock. Ultimately off course, the whole
>climate change bandwagon was started because Margaret Thatcher put a
>great deal of money into buying computers and scientists to produce
>models to prove her hobby horse.
Does open water at the North pole dramatically add to the atmospheric
water content?
Right. Perhaps we should concentrate on improving energy efficiency and
extending the life of fossil reserves while the scientists sort out
their climate change models. At least it gives employment and some
beneficial pay back.
>
>Consider, for example, instead the potential effect of the threatened
>extinction of the bee, due to destruction of habitat, insecticides,
>infestation with mites from other parts of the world, etc. In fifty
>years we may find that our crops are not being fertilised. How will we
>get on then?
Umm.. fortunately cereals and grasses are wind pollinated. Whether
legumes, brassicas, fruit trees etc. could be adapted by genetic
manipulation is beyond my knowledge.
regards
--
Tim Lamb
Peter Duncanson
<t...@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <JkawDUNO...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk>, Oh No
><No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> writes
>>
>>I would think 3% of human output. I believe the biggest single creation
>>of man made CO2 is nothing to do with modern technology. Peat fires in
>>the Philippines (the traditional method of cooking) account for about
>>25% of man made production.
>
>How so? Do they set fire to the land to fry breakfast?
I hope you are joking. :-)
They presumably use the same technique as the Irish: dig out blocks of
peat and put them somewhere to dry. Once dry they can be used on a fire
instead of wood or whatever.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.business.agriculture)
Steve Firth
> Perhaps we should concentrate on improving energy efficiency and
> extending the life of fossil reserves while the scientists sort out
> their climate change models.
Actually what we ought to do is slash the birthrate. If there is such a
thing as man-made global warming then it is a consequence of over
population, as is every other ill laid at the dor of "not enough x to go
round" or "too much x being used".
A good plague or a dozen wouldn't go amiss either.
Buddenbrooks
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1ja9nfw.ixvgvh14ubi9qN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Tim Lamb <t...@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps someone could kick off with the broad facts about CO2
>> production: be it natural or man made.
>
> Hmm, how long is a piece of string?
>
> FWIW, in another newsgroup I questioned a cyclist's assertion that his
> use of a bicycle contributes no CO2 emissions. If the figures for energy
> consumption while cycling quoted by a cycling pressure group are correct
> then cycling uses 1200 kcal/hour. That equates to CO2 production of
> 500g/hour or 25g/km if the cyclist manages to average 20kph (about
> 12mph). Apologies for the mixed units, but I still tend to think in mph
> for road travel.
As an over weight cyclist trying to reduce :) , an exercise guide gives:
Cycling 25 miles requires roughly 1000 Cal
Which is consistant with my experience of hunger after cycling. Also the
ready energy store in the liver is around 2000 calories so
any activity burning more than that between meals is awfully obvious.
A cycle is a pretty efficient machine and body fat and mineral oil are
pretty similar starting point and the weight of a cycle at under 30 lbs
means
the over head of material transported is far less than a car.
I think I would question any analysis that showed a cyclist produced a tenth
of the additional CO2 production of a car in a similar run.
CO2 production is not a bad thing in itself, keeps the planet from freezing
over, no CO2 no plants.
> Now 25g/km might sound low, but a Ford Fiesta car with a 1.6L
> turbocharged diesel engine manages 98g/km with five people aboard.
> That's 19.6g/passenger-km, less than a cyclist produces.
>
I think a cyclist produces less than half of the CO2 you calculated.
I would agree that a fully filled modern small car is an efficient method of
transport. But in 'normal' occupancy of just the driver we are back to 10x a
cyclist for the same journey.
Buddenbrooks
>
> A good plague or a dozen wouldn't go amiss either.
I imagine one will come, virus can mutate faster than vaccines can be
engineered and distributed.
Oz
>I think a cyclist produces less than half of the CO2 you calculated.
>I would agree that a fully filled modern small car is an efficient method of
>transport. But in 'normal' occupancy of just the driver we are back to 10x a
>cyclist for the same journey.
However to get your 1000 cals of internal fuel you will need to add
conversion costs and infrastructure costs.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9820889
suggests that pig feed conversion ratios of 2.2 to 5.9 are commercially
obtained, mean of 3.3. These in kg feed (almost certainly adjusted to
85% DM). Most of this would be protein but fat costs 2.2 times more, and
is fresh meat (MC sat 50% for fat). So adjust by a factor of say 3.3 x
2.2 x 2 = 14.5 factor. However this converts to (effectively) 85%DM
starch so for oil equivalent its (14.5x.85)/2.2 = 5.6.
A man is unlikely to be as efficient as a genetically designed pig fed
perfect rations under near perfect growing conditions. If a human got to
within 50% of a grower I would be impressed.
This will include some infrastructure costs (maintenance for example)
but not the cost of growing to a useful size or the
heating/education/clothing etc costs.
The difference is not so great, if it exists at all.
--
Oz
Oz
These are not peat fires for cooking you ass, it was the peat fires
caused by burning the forest, mostly during the last el nino when it was
dry enough to burn. It was world news for a few months.
eg
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1111_041111_indonesia_fi
res.html
http://www.imcg.net/imcgnl/nl0404/kap08.htm
<sigh>
--
Oz
Linda Sutherland
news:lsslh510qe6kh3qh0...@4ax.com...
> They presumably use the same technique as the Irish: dig out blocks of
> peat and put them somewhere to dry. Once dry they can be used on a fire
> instead of wood or whatever.
Up till about 1970 that was a common fuel source here too. From 1970s till
last year peat-burning declined dramatically. For example, in this island of
300-400 inhabitants, I've heard of only one family that was cutting a small
amount of peat for occasional use. Everyone else had given up.
Then the price of oil shot up. No one on this island went back to peat fuel,
but elsewhere in the isles there was visible evidence that some people had
re-oiled their dad's or grandad's old peat-cutting tools and put them to
use. (No piped gas here - fuel choice is oil, electricity, or bottled gas,
all of which bar a few kW electricity has to be imported.)
Linda
Peter Duncanson
Yes, yes. But do they cook their breakfast on these fires as referred to
by Tim?
Peter Duncanson
Here in the urban as well as rural parts of Northern Ireland it is
customary for petrol/diesel filling stations to sell coal, logs and peat
for domestic fires. The peat is in the form of peat briquettes (milled
peat compressed at high temperature).
Oz
>
>Yes, yes. But do they cook their breakfast on these fires as referred to by Tim?
No.
<sigh>
Plenty of trees (for the moment).
--
Oz
Robert Seago
Oh No <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Another thing they don't like to let on. There has been no warming over
> the last ten years, .......
So what, there has over the last nine.
Jill
news:9bQV+pRc...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
> In article <50c58e5b...@zetnet.co.uk>, Robert Seago
> <rjs...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
> record.
hmm
I would have guessed that ours was one of the chilliest and therefore
driest, for quite some years.
The summer was unremarkable, no particular heat.
In fact, we have all been comparing it with summers some 20 years ago.
--
regards
Jill Bowis
www.kintaline.co.uk - where we are, what we do: Kintaline Plant and Poultry
Centre
Steve Firth
> In article <50c58e5b...@zetnet.co.uk>, Robert Seago
> <rjs...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
> And it is predicted that 2009 will be in the top five warmest years on
> record.
For the sake of balance I'll predict that it won't be. There you go, you
can sleep easy.
Do you always worry about predictions?
Tim Lamb
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Do you always worry about predictions?
>
>was merely passing on a prediction that was originally made in late
>2008 and which seems now, as 2009 draws to an end, as if it is coming
>to pass.
>
>The fact that I live close to sea level has nothing to do with it -
>nothing ..... not at all ..... ridiculous idea ..... as if I would
>worry ..... not in the slightest .... anyone know of a firm that moves
>houses up hills?
The 80m contour runs by this house so I am not concerned about salt
water. Just the thought of umpteen million Londoners looking for
somewhere dry!
regards
>
--
Tim Lamb
Jill
>>> And it is predicted that 2009 will be in the top five warmest years on
>>> record.
>>
>>hmm
>>I would have guessed that ours was one of the chilliest and therefore
>>driest, for quite some years.
>>The summer was unremarkable, no particular heat.
>>
>>In fact, we have all been comparing it with summers some 20 years ago.
>>
> that of a small area north of Oban :-)
>
yeah I know, but living in somewhat similar proximity to the sea as you, we
can clutch at straws.
Fortunately our bit of coast is still rising !
:)
--
--
regards
Jill Bowis
http://www.kintaline.co.uk
Linda Sutherland
> The peat is in the form of peat briquettes (milled
> peat compressed at high temperature).
Sounds useless. :-)
Linda.
Jill
>>
> Yes, here, too, though whether by enough.........
I know
It was a pretty full tide yesterday morning!!, almost into our bottom field
duck pond.
Jane Gillett
Malcolm <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <50c58e5b...@zetnet.co.uk>, Robert Seago
> <rjs...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
> And it is predicted that 2009 will be in the top five warmest years on
> record.
I'd like to see some comparisons of past predictions with what actually
occurred, particularly using the models/methods/data that current
predictions are based on. Or, in fewer words, did "they" get it right in
the past?
Cheers
Jane
--
Jane G : j.gi...@higherstert.co.uk : S Devon
Derek Moody
That's how the methods are tested. Give the procedure all the data up to
a particular date. Then compare its prediction with the measured values for
the subsequent period. If it isn't a reasonable match return to the drawing
board...
So whatever is in use now will have had to pass muster.
Cheerio,
--
Derek Moody
They'll be a while yet. Worry first about the southern half of the EU
looking for somewhere they can still grow a crop.
Derek Moody
You need to use it with care, it's too easy to stack it up and burn a whole
load in a couple of hours. If you leave it in a bed of ash it won't blaze
and will stay in all day.
Tim Lamb
Moody <de...@farm-direct.co.uk> writes
>>
>> The 80m contour runs by this house so I am not concerned about salt
>> water. Just the thought of umpteen million Londoners looking for
>> somewhere dry!
>
>They'll be a while yet. Worry first about the southern half of the EU
>looking for somewhere they can still grow a crop.
Israel seems to manage. Surely Greece and Italy ought to grow
something?
regards
--
Tim Lamb
Jane Gillett
Derek Moody <de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <50c5df0d2...@higherstert.co.uk>, Jane Gillett
> <URL:mailto:j.gi...@higherstert.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <9bQV+pRc...@indaal.demon.co.uk>,
> > Malcolm <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <50c58e5b...@zetnet.co.uk>, Robert Seago
> > > <rjs...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
> > > >In article <JkawDUNO...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk>,
> > > > Oh No <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> Another thing they don't like to let on. There has been no warming over
> > > >> the last ten years, .......
> > > >
> > > >So what, there has over the last nine.
> > > >
> > > And it is predicted that 2009 will be in the top five warmest years on
> > > record.
> >
> > I'd like to see some comparisons of past predictions with what actually
> > occurred, particularly using the models/methods/data that current
> > predictions are based on. Or, in fewer words, did "they" get it right in
> > the past?
> That's how the methods are tested.
Yes. that's the scientific discipline.
> Give the procedure all the data up to
> a particular date. Then compare its prediction with the measured values for
> the subsequent period.
Has this been done for past periods? Can we see any indication of the model
predictions compared with actual values? Has somebody taken records of a
section of the past, applied the models(s) and compared their output with
the weather immediately following the the period relating to the data used?
OPr do we not have enough records? In that case the models are untested.
> If it isn't a reasonable match return to the drawing
> board...
Should be. Is it? Or is there too much entrenched expensive opinion and
procedure in force? Too many reputations to be risked? There must be some
reason why anybody who challenges the concept of
reversible-mandmade-globalwarming isn't simply argued with but called
derogatory names like "deniers".
> So whatever is in use now will have had to pass muster.
Like the infectivity profiles used in FMD models? IAGTU that the estimate
of infectivity used in the models (contiguous properties for instance) was
far in excess of that accepted in medical circles for some major human
infectious diseases. Those models were used for FMD control; were they
tested as above so that they "passed muster"? What makes anybody think that
the attitude to globalwarming/climatechange/whatever will be any different?
AFAICS:
1. There is a split in expert opinion.
2. There are suggestions strong enough to give me doubts that data has been
modified by statistical evaluation and/or lost; and maybe deliberately
hidden.
3. The insulting way those vocally "pro" global warming treat any who
express other views, and pressures on not publishing "anti-" views mean
that valid "anti-change" results and opinion may be being suppressed.
4. Whether the current conditions are man-made-climate-change or not, it
seems very ambitious to think we can change it over a short period if at
all.
However.
We are wasting the limited resources of this spaceship we live on and we
are recklessly polluting it - to an extent that our descendents may have
problems in surviving and presumably those of you who have descendents
would prefer them to survive.
If the only way to make our species take strong enough action and work
together to rectify <that> situation is to put their backs up against a
wall and put the gun of global warming to their heads (I doubt if we've got
everybody quite scared enough yet - certainly not the business financiers
or the political/religious bodies who feel they've "got a message for
mankind" - and certainly not the public who choose lowest money prices over
all else) then whether the current theory is true or not is perhaps
irrelevant - it has some use as it may force change. Whether we'll cause
less human misery by international agreements, though, than by the syndrome
we're trying to avoid seems doubtful.
Cheers
Jane
> Cheerio,
Oz
>AFAICS:
>1. There is a split in expert opinion.
A significant minority think the human element is unproven and may have
less significance than we attribute to it.
Very few people think that recent (last 10,000years) global warming is
not a fact. As a consequence we should seriously consider the effect of
continued warming.
>2. There are suggestions strong enough to give me doubts that data has been
>modified by statistical evaluation and/or lost; and maybe deliberately hidden.
Perhaps 'massaged', but does it matter (see above).
>3. The insulting way those vocally "pro" global warming treat any who express
>other views, and pressures on not publishing "anti-" views mean that valid
>"anti-change" results and opinion may be being suppressed.
I'm certain this is so, and not just in this area. I utterly deprecate
this habit.
>4. Whether the current conditions are man-made-climate-change or not, it seems
>very ambitious to think we can change it over a short period if at all.
Yes. We can, however, plan.
>However.
>
>We are wasting the limited resources of this spaceship we live on and we are
>recklessly polluting it - to an extent that our descendents may have problems in
>surviving and presumably those of you who have descendents would prefer them to
>survive.
Yes, in many areas. However note that the deforestation of western
europe was caused by man yet few would consider it a 'destroyed
ecosystem', or 'polluted'.
>If the only way to make our species take strong enough action and work together
>to rectify <that> situation is to put their backs up against a wall and put the
>gun of global warming to their heads (I doubt if we've got everybody quite
>scared enough yet - certainly not the business financiers or the
>political/religious bodies who feel they've "got a message for mankind" - and
>certainly not the public who choose lowest money prices over all else) then
>whether the current theory is true or not is perhaps irrelevant - it has some
>use as it may force change. Whether we'll cause less human misery by
>international agreements, though, than by the syndrome we're trying to avoid
>seems doubtful.
Yes.
--
Oz
Bob Martin
>3. The insulting way those vocally "pro" global warming treat any who
>express other views,
. is as nothing compared to the scorn & accusations heaped upon "believers" by the "skeptics"!
Oz
Both equally bad, except when persistent errors are involved!
--
Oz
andrew
> We are wasting the limited resources of this spaceship we live on and we
> are recklessly polluting it - to an extent that our descendents may have
> problems in surviving and presumably those of you who have descendents
> would prefer them to survive.
I agree with what you say and have believed this since well before climate
change from atmospheric CO2 became a talking point.
In that period fossil fuel use has increased and is increasing ( despite my
geography teacher telling us in 1961 that the world would run out of oil in
2000 and we would freeze) the cost to me of using fossil fuel in real terms
has not risen.
After many years working by myself I now work with other people, they do not
consider their lifestyles are negotiable and in the work environment they
will not be persuaded to do the simple things most people have come to do
at home, like basic recycling or energy conservation (because it's company
money).
Even if climate change cannot be mitigated the measures we are expected to
take are basic good housekeeping for gaia, where gaia need be no more than
the system that kept earth in homoeostasis during the 400,000 years that
hominids have walked on 2 feet.
We doubled atmospheric CO2 from stone age to industrial revolution and then
agian from industrial revolution to now. What reason have we to believe
that causing a gross excursion like that would be benign? The effect on
climate may be debatable but the effect on oceans ( which are in
equilibrium with the atmosphere and hole 45% of the load) is verified and
having an effect.
How much is other, more general, pollution preventing the rather small
amount of fossil derived CO2 being mopped up? IIRC we dump 6GT C into the
atmosphere and photosynthesis plus decay cycle 130GT.
With Photosynthesis being the largest means of fixing CO2 from the
atmosphere why don't learned bodies consider an intervention in this growth
and decay cycle more worthy than spending .55kW/kg of CO2 to stick it back
under the ground as a liquid?
AJH
Buddenbrooks
"andrew" <ne...@sylva.icuklive.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7oalfaF...@mid.individual.net...
> After many years working by myself I now work with other people, they do
not
> consider their lifestyles are negotiable and in the work environment they
> will not be persuaded to do the simple things most people have come to do
> at home, like basic recycling or energy conservation (because it's company
> money).
>
I do nothing at work optionally recycling or energy conservation., and why
should I ?
The company has installed appropriate systems and procedures so it happens
anyway.
If these things are to happen effectively they need to be incorporated in
the way things naturally happen rather
than depending on good will or guilt.
Unfortunately we have a government which sees everything as a tax raising
opportunity, hence the councils which fine people who allow
recycle bins to have the wrong waste in them while diverting it all into the
same landfill.
Oz
>We doubled atmospheric CO2 from stone age to industrial revolution and then
>agian from industrial revolution to now.
This is almost certainly incorrect. Atmospheric CO2 levels have
fluctuated between these levels many times over many ice ages. Man
certainly has NOT been responsible for the earlier ones.
Which is not to say that man's effects haven't contributed to more
recent levela and more importantly to future ones.
>What reason have we to believe that
>causing a gross excursion like that would be benign?
see 'age of the dinosaurs'?
>The effect on climate may
>be debatable but the effect on oceans ( which are in equilibrium with the
>atmosphere and hole 45% of the load) is verified and having an effect.
Given the thermal inertia of large volumes of ice and water (most of the
sea is 4C for example) what makes you think that even pre-industrial
levels were not more than enough to continue the warming status? After
all glaciers have been steadily retreating for that last 10,000 years
with little indication they ever reached an equilibrium.
>How much is other, more general, pollution preventing the rather small amount of
>fossil derived CO2 being mopped up?
Probably not remotely significant. Suggest a plausible pathway and
indicate reduced photosynthesis in polluted areas, say UK agricultural
production 1800-2000. Ooops, apparently a negative effect...
>IIRC we dump 6GT C into the atmosphere and
>photosynthesis plus decay cycle 130GT.
Very likely although that seems high at ~10T for every man, woman and
child on the planet.
>With Photosynthesis being the largest means of fixing CO2 from the atmosphere
>why don't learned bodies consider an intervention in this growth and decay cycle
>more worthy than spending .55kW/kg of CO2 to stick it back under the ground as a
>liquid?
Excellent idea.
I also rather liked the 3km tube-towns where damp hot air came in at the
bottom and rose up the middle cooling (and condensing) as it went
producing rain and the resulting uplift produced the power required to
run the city. This may need more work and be a tad fururistic.
--
Oz
Tim Lamb
<knights...@budweiser.com> writes
Angela does our recycling except I get to carry the bins. Stripping
celotape off cardboard is beyond reason IMV.
I sincerely hope that governments across the world are pressurising
manufacturers to use easily recyclable products and to find ways of
identifying them.
regards
--
Tim Lamb
andrew
> andrew <ne...@sylva.icuklive.co.uk> writes
>
>>We doubled atmospheric CO2 from stone age to industrial revolution and
>>then agian from industrial revolution to now.
>
> This is almost certainly incorrect.
I don't think so, the difference between previously forset covered land and
agriculture from clearances contributed vast amounts of atmospheric CO2 and
this continued apace as the new world was discovered and converted to
agriculture. Not only was the growing stock of carbon removed by colateral
reduction of the soil organic carbon in temperate cultivated, and drained
areas.
> Atmospheric CO2 levels have
> fluctuated between these levels many times over many ice ages. Man
> certainly has NOT been responsible for the earlier ones.
Between what levels? I qualifies my statement to only include the period
when hominids walked the earth ( which I took to be about 400,000 years but
a quick Google suggests bipedal hominids may have existed 1.5 million years
ago), because we do not know if conditions were appropriate for their
existence before this period, Since then none of the regular excursions
(there have been 3) of atmospheric CO2 have been over 300 nor less than 150
ppm.
>>What reason have we to believe that
>>causing a gross excursion like that would be benign?
>
> see 'age of the dinosaurs'?
>
Why, what's the significance?
>>The effect on climate may
>>be debatable but the effect on oceans ( which are in equilibrium with the
>>atmosphere and hole 45% of the load) is verified and having an effect.
>
> Given the thermal inertia of large volumes of ice and water (most of the
> sea is 4C for example) what makes you think that even pre-industrial
> levels were not more than enough to continue the warming status? After
> all glaciers have been steadily retreating for that last 10,000 years
> with little indication they ever reached an equilibrium.
I realise that melting large volumes of ice won't change temperature much,
merely increase liquid water but my point was the acidifying effect of CO2
is readily demonstrates along with its linkage to reducing the ability of
crustaceans to fix CO2.
>
>>How much is other, more general, pollution preventing the rather small
>>amount of
>>fossil derived CO2 being mopped up?
>
> Probably not remotely significant. Suggest a plausible pathway and
> indicate reduced photosynthesis in polluted areas, say UK agricultural
> production 1800-2000. Ooops, apparently a negative effect...#
See above ref de-forestation and sea changes, agricultural production tends
to be an annual effect and quickly cycled, like falling leaves.
>
>>With Photosynthesis being the largest means of fixing CO2 from the
>>atmosphere why don't learned bodies consider an intervention in this
>>growth and decay cycle more worthy than spending .55kW/kg of CO2 to stick
>>it back under the ground as a liquid?
>
> Excellent idea.
Possibly. Following my talk to the EA and interested bodies at a seminar
last summer I've been asked to make a miniature system to provide material
for pot trials at East Malling Research Station over the Christmas period.
andrew
> In message <Wj0Um.75253$AD4....@newsfe04.ams2>, Buddenbrooks
> <knights...@budweiser.com> writes
>>I do nothing at work optionally recycling or energy conservation., and
>>why should I ?
Tony of all people on this forum I wouldn't expect you to shut a door after
you unless you were paying the fuel bill. Some people simply are not hard
coded to think of anything other than themselves.
>
> Angela does our recycling except I get to carry the bins. Stripping
> celotape off cardboard is beyond reason IMV.
I agree entirely, pre segregation should not involve time consuming of
fiddly tasks and yes the problem does need addressing at source.
BTW this waste from packaging is a very recent problem, 90% of this since
the 50s, look at the way fossil derived plastics displaced cellophane,
brown paper and glass.
>
AJH
Derek Moody
Jane Gillett
> >AFAICS:
> >1. There is a split in expert opinion.
> A significant minority think the human element is unproven and may have
> less significance than we attribute to it.
> Very few people think that recent (last 10,000years) global warming is
> not a fact. As a consequence we should seriously consider the effect of
> continued warming.
Certainly. If it's been going on for 10,000 years are we likely to be (a)
responsible through burning fossil fuels and (b) likely to be able to stop
it now?
I note your para below. If by considering the effect you mean making plans
for a changed world then, yes. For a start, most our larger cities are
ports; are we making plans to relocate their inhabitants? All of them? And
for food production, we can, in UK, presumably, change our crops to more
mediterranean species but what will grow on our uplands? Our winters will
be too warm for grapes and we won't be allowed livestock because of the
gases they emit. Olives perhaps? Tilling the uplands for cereals will be
hard without oil - unless we end up using them to grow the bio-fuels we
need to work them! Mind you, most of the farming implements we currently
depend on have limitations in what terrain they'll be safe on!
> >2. There are suggestions strong enough to give me doubts that data has been
> >modified by statistical evaluation and/or lost; and maybe deliberately hidden.
> Perhaps 'massaged', but does it matter (see above).
In principle, yes. If science is not honest (and that includes complete)
then it is useless. For practical purposes I guess an approximate
mis-statement is less important if the real purpose is not to extend human
knowledge of how things behave but to push mankind into doing something we
don't want to do, for some "good" reason.
> >3. The insulting way those vocally "pro" global warming treat any who express
> >other views, and pressures on not publishing "anti-" views mean that valid
> >"anti-change" results and opinion may be being suppressed.
> I'm certain this is so, and not just in this area. I utterly deprecate
> this habit.
Yes. I don't think global warming has a monopoly on this. It was inevitab;e
when Maggie deemed that basic research had no value in itself and all
research had to be financed by some commercial concern or other. No concern
is going to be very keen on putting out data which goes straight against
their objectives; why should they?
> >4. Whether the current conditions are man-made-climate-change or not, it seems
> >very ambitious to think we can change it over a short period if at all.
> Yes. We can, however, plan.
Yes. My concern here is that the models we are basing our plans on - both
environmental and economic - are likely to be only a pale imitation of
reality and the resulting plans will cause misery, maybe unnecessary misery
where the models give totally wrong outputs and where the actions are
"massaged" to meet political and financial objectives.
> >However.
> >
> >We are wasting the limited resources of this spaceship we live on and we are
> >recklessly polluting it - to an extent that our descendents may have problems in
> >surviving and presumably those of you who have descendents would prefer them to
> >survive.
> Yes, in many areas. However note that the deforestation of western
> europe was caused by man yet few would consider it a 'destroyed
> ecosystem', or 'polluted'.
Few would. It is hard to consider our own homes and lifestyle supports in
those categories because we naturally don't want to surrender them but in
character they are. They've been feasible in the past because there have
been fewer of them (fewer of us using them) but now with increasing
population, even more powerful technologies, and a higher proportion of the
humans wanting the advantages, we are winning over nature's ability to
compensate, to the extent of destroying its ability to support us - or we
will eventually if we don't change our ways. Perhaps that's nature's way -
other species/communities have arisen, multiplied to the extent of
destroying the environment they depended on and died out; could be our
future. However, the suffering we will encounter in the early stages will
be considerable; in a way, that could be our salvation as a species - if we
(a) are forced to get used to a different way of life and (b) kill enough
of each other off.
And none of this depends on global warming but if that's the spur to bang
our heads together (forgive the mixed metaphore) then maybe I should say
"so be it".
Thanks for a calm reasoned response. that seems to be rare in this area.
Cheers
Jane
> >If the only way to make our species take strong enough action and work together
> >to rectify <that> situation is to put their backs up against a wall and put the
> >gun of global warming to their heads (I doubt if we've got everybody quite
> >scared enough yet - certainly not the business financiers or the
> >political/religious bodies who feel they've "got a message for mankind" - and
> >certainly not the public who choose lowest money prices over all else) then
> >whether the current theory is true or not is perhaps irrelevant - it has some
> >use as it may force change. Whether we'll cause less human misery by
> >international agreements, though, than by the syndrome we're trying to avoid
> >seems doubtful.
> Yes.
--
Jane G : j.gi...@higherstert.co.uk : S Devon
Oz
>Oz wrote:
>
>> andrew <ne...@sylva.icuklive.co.uk> writes
>>
>>>We doubled atmospheric CO2 from stone age to industrial revolution and
>>>then agian from industrial revolution to now.
>>
>> This is almost certainly incorrect.
>
>I don't think so, the difference between previously forset covered land and
>agriculture from clearances contributed vast amounts of atmospheric CO2 and
>this continued apace as the new world was discovered and converted to
>agriculture. Not only was the growing stock of carbon removed by colateral
>reduction of the soil organic carbon in temperate cultivated, and drained
>areas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation
That may well be true (and I've mentioned it before) but this
interglacial is little different from the others so far.
>> Atmospheric CO2 levels have
>> fluctuated between these levels many times over many ice ages. Man
>> certainly has NOT been responsible for the earlier ones.
>
>Between what levels? I qualifies my statement to only include the period
>when hominids walked the earth ( which I took to be about 400,000 years but
>a quick Google suggests bipedal hominids may have existed 1.5 million years
>ago), because we do not know if conditions were appropriate for their
>existence before this period, Since then none of the regular excursions
>(there have been 3) of atmospheric CO2 have been over 300 nor less than 150
>ppm.
The evidence is that there weren't enough hominids then, and no homo sap
in previous interglacials.
Its also moot to ask why there were glaciated periods though out the
last 700Kya if these hominids were so successful.
>>>What reason have we to believe that
>>>causing a gross excursion like that would be benign?
>>
>> see 'age of the dinosaurs'?
>
>Why, what's the significance?
Because they lived in an ice-free world, there were even dinosaurs in
the (then) Antarctic.
>>>The effect on climate may
>>>be debatable but the effect on oceans ( which are in equilibrium with the
>>>atmosphere and hole 45% of the load) is verified and having an effect.
>>
>> Given the thermal inertia of large volumes of ice and water (most of the
>> sea is 4C for example) what makes you think that even pre-industrial
>> levels were not more than enough to continue the warming status? After
>> all glaciers have been steadily retreating for that last 10,000 years
>> with little indication they ever reached an equilibrium.
>
>I realise that melting large volumes of ice won't change temperature much,
Eh? You are joking aren't you? 3km of ice over 1/2 the globe is quite a
thermal inertia, trust me.
>merely increase liquid water but my point was the acidifying effect of CO2
>is readily demonstrates along with its linkage to reducing the ability of
>crustaceans to fix CO2.
Crustaceans don't fix CO2, quite the reverse.
>>>How much is other, more general, pollution preventing the rather small
>>>amount of
>>>fossil derived CO2 being mopped up?
>>
>> Probably not remotely significant. Suggest a plausible pathway and
>> indicate reduced photosynthesis in polluted areas, say UK agricultural
>> production 1800-2000. Ooops, apparently a negative effect...#
>
>See above ref de-forestation and sea changes, agricultural production tends
>to be an annual effect and quickly cycled, like falling leaves.
You suggested pollution was significantly reducing photosynthesis, you
gave no evidence for that. What evidence there is suggests that the most
polluted (within reason) areas are more productive than unpolluted ones.
Mind you the reason isn't related to pollution, but hey.
>>>With Photosynthesis being the largest means of fixing CO2 from the
>>>atmosphere why don't learned bodies consider an intervention in this
>>>growth and decay cycle more worthy than spending .55kW/kg of CO2 to stick
>>>it back under the ground as a liquid?
>>
>> Excellent idea.
>
>Possibly. Following my talk to the EA and interested bodies at a seminar
>last summer I've been asked to make a miniature system to provide material
>for pot trials at East Malling Research Station over the Christmas period.
Just grow lots of trees and sink them in a subduction zone.
Job done.
--
Oz
Oz
>In article <xL9z6YJi...@OzHome.com>,
> Oz <O...@mailcatch.com> wrote:
>> Jane Gillett <j.gi...@higherstert.co.uk> writes
>
>> >AFAICS:
>> >1. There is a split in expert opinion.
>
>> A significant minority think the human element is unproven and may have
>> less significance than we attribute to it.
>
>> Very few people think that recent (last 10,000years) global warming is
>> not a fact. As a consequence we should seriously consider the effect of
>> continued warming.
>
>Certainly. If it's been going on for 10,000 years are we likely to be (a)
>responsible through burning fossil fuels and (
Possibly, but unlikely.
>b) likely to be able to stop
>it now?
probably not, IMHO.
>I note your para below. If by considering the effect you mean making plans
>for a changed world then, yes. For a start, most our larger cities are
>ports; are we making plans to relocate their inhabitants?
No, but new building should perhaps be concentrated above, say, 50m or
perhaps better 100m?
>All of them?
Eventually it will be needed, and the land area will be significantly
less.
>And
>for food production, we can, in UK, presumably, change our crops to more
>mediterranean species
Maybe. Our rainfall may be heavy in winter and dry in summer, but plenty
of rain when it comes.
>but what will grow on our uplands? Our winters will
>be too warm for grapes and we won't be allowed livestock because of the
>gases they emit.
Hungry people are apt not to worry about sheep burps...
>Olives perhaps? Tilling the uplands for cereals will be
>hard without oil - unless we end up using them to grow the bio-fuels we
>need to work them! Mind you, most of the farming implements we currently
>depend on have limitations in what terrain they'll be safe on!
Indeed, trees would probably be a good option.
>> >2. There are suggestions strong enough to give me doubts that data has been
>> >modified by statistical evaluation and/or lost; and maybe deliberately
>hidden.
>
>> Perhaps 'massaged', but does it matter (see above).
>
>In principle, yes. If science is not honest (and that includes complete)
>then it is useless.
I agree. Note my comments on BSE in the past.
>For practical purposes I guess an approximate
>mis-statement is less important if the real purpose is not to extend human
>knowledge of how things behave but to push mankind into doing something we
>don't want to do, for some "good" reason.
People have political, ethical and religious views that tend them to
telling porkies. The point about science is that experiments are clearly
set out and can (and sometimes are) be shown to be falsified.
>> >3. The insulting way those vocally "pro" global warming treat any who express
>> >other views, and pressures on not publishing "anti-" views mean that valid
>> >"anti-change" results and opinion may be being suppressed.
>
>> I'm certain this is so, and not just in this area. I utterly deprecate
>> this habit.
>
>Yes. I don't think global warming has a monopoly on this. It was inevitab;e
>when Maggie deemed that basic research had no value in itself and all
>research had to be financed by some commercial concern or other. No concern
>is going to be very keen on putting out data which goes straight against
>their objectives; why should they?
There are those that do, quite a few in fact. You don't tend to hear
about them very much though.
>> >4. Whether the current conditions are man-made-climate-change or not, it
>seems
>> >very ambitious to think we can change it over a short period if at all.
>
>> Yes. We can, however, plan.
>
>Yes. My concern here is that the models we are basing our plans on - both
>environmental and economic - are likely to be only a pale imitation of
>reality and the resulting plans will cause misery, maybe unnecessary misery
>where the models give totally wrong outputs and where the actions are
>"massaged" to meet political and financial objectives.
One has to do the best one can under the knowledge one has.
Bit like farming, really....
>> >However.
>> >
>> >We are wasting the limited resources of this spaceship we live on and we are
>> >recklessly polluting it - to an extent that our descendents may have problems
>in
>> >surviving and presumably those of you who have descendents would prefer them
>to
>> >survive.
>
>> Yes, in many areas. However note that the deforestation of western
>> europe was caused by man yet few would consider it a 'destroyed
>> ecosystem', or 'polluted'.
>
>Few would. It is hard to consider our own homes and lifestyle supports in
>those categories because we naturally don't want to surrender them but in
>character they are. They've been feasible in the past because there have
>been fewer of them (fewer of us using them) but now with increasing
>population, even more powerful technologies, and a higher proportion of the
>humans wanting the advantages, we are winning over nature's ability to
>compensate, to the extent of destroying its ability to support us - or we
>will eventually if we don't change our ways. Perhaps that's nature's way -
>other species/communities have arisen, multiplied to the extent of
>destroying the environment they depended on and died out; could be our
>future. However, the suffering we will encounter in the early stages will
>be considerable; in a way, that could be our salvation as a species - if we
>(a) are forced to get used to a different way of life and (b) kill enough
>of each other off.
Or have a different world ecosystem.
>And none of this depends on global warming but if that's the spur to bang
>our heads together (forgive the mixed metaphore) then maybe I should say
>"so be it".
>
>Thanks for a calm reasoned response. that seems to be rare in this area.
Oh dear, was I?
I will have to try harder.
--
Oz
andrew
> That may well be true (and I've mentioned it before) but this
> interglacial is little different from the others so far.
It does look a little difference in that we've had this plateau of arctic
temperatures for several thousand years whereas previous ones have not but
that might be because the earlier ice cores are difficult to examine as
closely. Aside from the climate change cause and effect the simple fact is
is the rise in CO2 damaging. of no effect or benign?
>>>>What reason have we to believe that
>>>>causing a gross excursion like that would be benign?
>>>
>>> see 'age of the dinosaurs'?
>>
>>Why, what's the significance?
>
> Because they lived in an ice-free world, there were even dinosaurs in
> the (then) Antarctic.
But there was no co-existence of bipedal hominids and dinosaurs. Are you
arguing that a gross climate excursion can exterminate whole species? If so
I agree and see no reason why humans should be a special case, other than
they could react to the changes in an engineering manner.
>
>>>>The effect on climate may
>>>>be debatable but the effect on oceans ( which are in equilibrium with
>>>>the atmosphere and hole 45% of the load) is verified and having an
>>>>effect.
>>>
>>> Given the thermal inertia of large volumes of ice and water (most of the
>>> sea is 4C for example) what makes you think that even pre-industrial
>>> levels were not more than enough to continue the warming status? After
>>> all glaciers have been steadily retreating for that last 10,000 years
>>> with little indication they ever reached an equilibrium.
>>
>>I realise that melting large volumes of ice won't change temperature much,
>
> Eh? You are joking aren't you? 3km of ice over 1/2 the globe is quite a
> thermal inertia, trust me.
I agree, but the thermal inertia of the latent enthalpy is what makes a low
temperature change between the two states. Put simply if the balance of
radiation striking the earth from the sun and earth reflecting or re
radiating it changes then the the difference in heat between ice and water
introduces a lag.
>
>>merely increase liquid water but my point was the acidifying effect of CO2
>>is readily demonstrates along with its linkage to reducing the ability of
>>crustaceans to fix CO2.
>
> Crustaceans don't fix CO2, quite the reverse.
How so? I thought chalk was the deposit of exoskeletons of marine life?
>
>
> You suggested pollution was significantly reducing photosynthesis, you
> gave no evidence for that.
No I did not mention photosynthesis as being damaged, I was referring to
pollution of the oceans being a possible cause of reduction of
sequestration of CO2 by marine life. I've mentioned this before: in 1970 a
friend's thesis was on heavy metal pollution in the Tawe estuary, I cannot
remember the actual figures but his results seemed to show a very large
reduction in shell fish activity from a minute increase in lead. The
formation of chalk has been a path by which CO2 was removed from the
atmosphere in the past.
At school I was taught the carbon cycle so it came as a big surprise to me
to find that the small imbalance caused by burning fossil fuels could build
up in the atmosphere and sea. Because I was also told plant growth was
enhanced by increased CO2 concentrations I naively expected gaia to quickly
buffer the change.
>
> Just grow lots of trees and sink them in a subduction zone.
> Job done.
>
I was thinking more that it may be necessary to do something in a short
timescale rather than millenia.
AJH
Buddenbrooks
> BTW this waste from packaging is a very recent problem, 90% of this since
> the 50s, look at the way fossil derived plastics displaced cellophane,
> brown paper and glass.
I bought a 4GB Flash memory dongle Saturday, The packaging weighed more
than the dongle.
I would imagine the packaging represented half the cost.
Peter Duncanson
I bought a piece of software earlier this year. A 2GB memory dongle was
included in the purchase as a free gift. I downloaded the software. The
dongle came a few days later by parcels service -- from Prague.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.business.agriculture)
Oz
Oz
>Oz wrote:
>
>> That may well be true (and I've mentioned it before) but this
>> interglacial is little different from the others so far.
>
>It does look a little difference in that we've had this plateau of arctic
>temperatures for several thousand years whereas previous ones have not but
>that might be because the earlier ice cores are difficult to examine as
>closely.
They are all pretty similar, natural variation included.
>Aside from the climate change cause and effect the simple fact is
>is the rise in CO2 damaging. of no effect or benign?
The fact is that CO2 levels have risen and fallen without mans effect,
as I said before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_CO2_with_glaciers_cycles.g
if
and it is unclear whether CO2 follows global temp or vice versa.
However it is improbable that man's generation of CO2 isn't having some
effect, not least stopping the next ice age. Possibly/probabl worse.
>
>>>>>What reason have we to believe that
>>>>>causing a gross excursion like that would be benign?
>>>>
>>>> see 'age of the dinosaurs'?
>>>
>>>Why, what's the significance?
>>
>> Because they lived in an ice-free world, there were even dinosaurs in
>> the (then) Antarctic.
>
>But there was no co-existence of bipedal hominids and dinosaurs.
So? It was a pretty luxurious world, was it not?
>Are you
>arguing that a gross climate excursion can exterminate whole species?
Well clearly it can. Worldwide glaciation would be pretty effective for
example. But actually I was not referring to that at all. In any case
man is pretty effective at exterminating species as it is and without
noticing.
>If so
>I agree and see no reason why humans should be a special case, other than
>they could react to the changes in an engineering manner.
I think its improbable that man will not survive. He exists
significantly in every ecosystem in the world.
>>>I realise that melting large volumes of ice won't change temperature much,
>>
>> Eh? You are joking aren't you? 3km of ice over 1/2 the globe is quite a
>> thermal inertia, trust me.
>
>I agree, but the thermal inertia of the latent enthalpy is what makes a low
>temperature change between the two states. Put simply if the balance of
>radiation striking the earth from the sun and earth reflecting or re
>radiating it changes then the the difference in heat between ice and water
>introduces a lag.
Gibberish.
>>>merely increase liquid water but my point was the acidifying effect of CO2
>>>is readily demonstrates along with its linkage to reducing the ability of
>>>crustaceans to fix CO2.
>>
>> Crustaceans don't fix CO2, quite the reverse.
>
>How so? I thought chalk was the deposit of exoskeletons of marine life?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crustacean
Crustaceans have keratinouse exoskeletons.
I imagine you mean molluscs.
>> You suggested pollution was significantly reducing photosynthesis, you
>> gave no evidence for that.
>
>No I did not mention photosynthesis as being damaged, I was referring to
>pollution of the oceans being a possible cause of reduction of
>sequestration of CO2 by marine life.
Generally pollution levels are low.
>I've mentioned this before: in 1970 a
>friend's thesis was on heavy metal pollution in the Tawe estuary, I cannot
>remember the actual figures but his results seemed to show a very large
>reduction in shell fish activity from a minute increase in lead. The
>formation of chalk has been a path by which CO2 was removed from the
>atmosphere in the past.
The taw estuary isn't 'the ocean' and it was lead tetraethyl used in
anti-boat fouling treatments.
>At school I was taught the carbon cycle so it came as a big surprise to me
>to find that the small imbalance caused by burning fossil fuels could build
>up in the atmosphere and sea. Because I was also told plant growth was
>enhanced by increased CO2 concentrations I naively expected gaia to quickly
>buffer the change.
Tricky when you simultaneously cut down the forests.
Also do not forget that todays tundra may be tomorrow's forest (see
canada), so you may be less wrong than you thought.
>> Just grow lots of trees and sink them in a subduction zone.
>> Job done.
>>
>
>I was thinking more that it may be necessary to do something in a short
>timescale rather than millenia.
Probably too late.
--
Oz
Tim Lamb
>andrew <ne...@sylva.icuklive.co.uk> writes
snip..
>>Are you
>>arguing that a gross climate excursion can exterminate whole species?
>
>Well clearly it can. Worldwide glaciation would be pretty effective for
>example. But actually I was not referring to that at all. In any case
>man is pretty effective at exterminating species as it is and without
>noticing.
Slight brain spasm on this.
Glaciers depend on snowfall to survive. If you have no water to
evaporate, no further snow and no thickening of ice.
The world can be an iceball but not with moving glaciers.
regards
--
Tim Lamb
Oz
>In message <tH00pmA6...@OzHome.com>, Oz <O...@mailcatch.com> writes
>>andrew <ne...@sylva.icuklive.co.uk> writes
>
>snip..
>>>Are you
>>>arguing that a gross climate excursion can exterminate whole species?
>>
>>Well clearly it can. Worldwide glaciation would be pretty effective for
>>example. But actually I was not referring to that at all. In any case
>>man is pretty effective at exterminating species as it is and without
>>noticing.
>
>Slight brain spasm on this.
>
>Glaciers depend on snowfall to survive. If you have no water to
>evaporate, no further snow and no thickening of ice.
Not absolutely so, even very cold air holds some moisture that can
condense if it gets even colder.
We will agree that the rate is Very Slow.
>The world can be an iceball but not with moving glaciers.
That depends on how long it takes to reach equilibrium even neglecting
the above (and wind etc).
Which brings me to a point I was discussing with alison the other day.
Inorder to get 3km high ice sheets over half the globe a lot of heat is
needed to evaporate the water to deposit it as snow. I rather wonder if
warm seas can do it and that if you get the sea hot enough, then have a
decent bit of vulcanism to reflect lots of sunlight then you could
pretty quickly snowcover a lot of the globe.
Which then reflects lots of sunlight, making the earth colder.
And results in more snow to cover the icy wastes....
Which could be a mechanism for stopping an ice age, its when the sea is
too cold to deliver enough snow cover.
Somewhere about 4C perhaps....
Now the seas are warning up again ...
--
Oz
Robert Seago
> andrew <ne...@sylva.icuklive.co.uk> writes
> >Oz wrote:
> They are all pretty similar, natural variation included.
> >Aside from the climate change cause and effect the simple fact is is
> >the rise in CO2 damaging. of no effect or benign?
> The fact is that CO2 levels have risen and fallen without mans effect,
> as I said before.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_CO2_with_glaciers_cycles.g
But present CO2 is at the highest since before the Minakovich cycles
(~900,000) kicked in 600,000 years ago
> if
> and it is unclear whether CO2 follows global temp or vice versa. However
> it is improbable that man's generation of CO2 isn't having some effect,
> not least stopping the next ice age. Possibly/probabl worse.
It is thought to be both. Warmer conditions have a positive feedback
associated. It may be to do with release of Hydrocarbons from permafrost.
<snip>
> Probably too late.
Let's hope you are wrong.
Oz
>In article <tH00pmA6...@OzHome.com>, Oz <O...@mailcatch.com> wrote:
>> andrew <ne...@sylva.icuklive.co.uk> writes
>> >Oz wrote:
>
>
>> They are all pretty similar, natural variation included.
>
>> >Aside from the climate change cause and effect the simple fact is is
>> >the rise in CO2 damaging. of no effect or benign?
>
>> The fact is that CO2 levels have risen and fallen without mans effect,
>> as I said before.
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_CO2_with_glaciers_cycles.g
>
>But present CO2 is at the highest since before the Minakovich cycles
>(~900,000) kicked in 600,000 years ago
Yes, but my point is that over the last many cycles CO2 levels have
risen and fallen without intervention by man. That we are now
interfering is highly probably, but that's another matter!
Circa 300ppm is recorded circa 32,000y ago.
>> if
>
>> and it is unclear whether CO2 follows global temp or vice versa. However
>> it is improbable that man's generation of CO2 isn't having some effect,
>> not least stopping the next ice age. Possibly/probabl worse.
>
>It is thought to be both. Warmer conditions have a positive feedback
>associated. It may be to do with release of Hydrocarbons from permafrost.
>
>> Probably too late.
>
>Let's hope you are wrong.
Indeed, but I can see nothing achievable to significantly reduce mans
CO2 emissions in the next 100 years.
After all it takes about 30 years to get a nuclear power station from
drawing board to producing electricity.
--
Oz
Derek Moody
<URL:mailto:O...@mailcatch.com> wrote:
> Robert Seago <rjs...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
> >But present CO2 is at the highest since before the Minakovich cycles
> >(~900,000) kicked in 600,000 years ago
>
> Yes, but my point is that over the last many cycles CO2 levels have
> risen and fallen without intervention by man. That we are now
> interfering is highly probably, but that's another matter!
And they do correlate nicely with global temperature.
> >> and it is unclear whether CO2 follows global temp or vice versa. However
> >> it is improbable that man's generation of CO2 isn't having some effect,
> >> not least stopping the next ice age. Possibly/probabl worse.
> >
> >It is thought to be both. Warmer conditions have a positive feedback
> >associated. It may be to do with release of Hydrocarbons from permafrost.
> >
> >> Probably too late.
> >
> >Let's hope you are wrong.
>
> Indeed, but I can see nothing achievable to significantly reduce mans
> CO2 emissions in the next 100 years.
There are a few low-hanging fruit in transportation, generation and heating
that will at least begin the process.
> After all it takes about 30 years to get a nuclear power station from
> drawing board to producing electricity.
But roughly 25 of those years are political process and delay. Adding a new
reactor to an existing (maybe decommissioned) site should be much quicker.
--
Robert Seago
Oz <O...@mailcatch.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Probably too late.
> >
> >Let's hope you are wrong.
> Indeed, but I can see nothing achievable to significantly reduce mans
> CO2 emissions in the next 100 years.
I sadly have to say I tend to agree. Politicians say a lot and do little;
a large proportion of the population don't believe there is a problem and
less still that they ought to be be affected by any changes.
But:
Possibly the passing of peak oil supply will break the present system.
Possibly the dominance of materialism that has dictated the pace in my
lifetime will pass.
However I am not inclined to shrug my shoulders. I think everything is
worth fighting for to the last.
andrew
<snip oznoxiousness>
>>No I did not mention photosynthesis as being damaged, I was referring to
>>pollution of the oceans being a possible cause of reduction of
>>sequestration of CO2 by marine life.
>
> Generally pollution levels are low.
This is your opinion, it also depends on definitions of "pollution", I have
mentioned two polluting mechanisms, one heavy metals which may have a
disproportionate effect at low levels and secondly the acidulating effect
of CO2 dissolved in the ocean as the ocean reaches equilibrium with the
atmosphere, as I said this accounts for about 45% of the "industrial"
excess of CO2 dumped to atmosphere. The atmosphere is the smallest and most
sensitive "organ" of gaia.
>
>>I've mentioned this before: in 1970 a
>>friend's thesis was on heavy metal pollution in the Tawe estuary, I cannot
>>remember the actual figures but his results seemed to show a very large
>>reduction in shell fish activity from a minute increase in lead. The
>>formation of chalk has been a path by which CO2 was removed from the
>>atmosphere in the past.
>
> The taw estuary isn't 'the ocean' and it was lead tetraethyl used in
> anti-boat fouling treatments.
Another obtuse reply. I gave the cite of a chap that studied the effect of
heavy metals and who chose the Tawe estuary because it was local to his
university and he could make direct comaprisons with less polluted areas
nearby. The lead was in mineral form as it was leached from mine tailings
higher up the valley.
Modern antifouling paints seem to be selenium based and prior to that I
though they were mercury based, it was when mercury became methylated that
the synergism developed and "minemata's (sp) disease" occurred in Japan
when the staple fish diet became contaminated.
Tetraethyl lead is a volatile additive used to increase the octane rating of
petrol, hence leaded and unleaded petrols.
> Tricky when you simultaneously cut down the forests.
> Also do not forget that todays tundra may be tomorrow's forest (see
> canada), so you may be less wrong than you thought.
In fact there is a large response shown in the growth of aspen in Canada
which is possibly due to both longer growing season and increased
availability of CO2
>
>>> Just grow lots of trees and sink them in a subduction zone.
>>> Job done.
>>>
>>
>>I was thinking more that it may be necessary to do something in a short
>>timescale rather than millenia.
>
> Probably too late.
>
Well I agree with that, we will differ on whether it's worth doing anything
to mitigate it though.
AJH
Buddenbrooks
> Well I agree with that, we will differ on whether it's worth doing
anything
> to mitigate it though.
>
Man is just another part of the eco-system. Things tend to multiply until
they exhaust their inputs and then negative feedback kicks in and
the numbers reduce to a stable level.
Because man has intelligence and the ability to use tools we have had a
major impact of which we are aware. So we can try and manipulate the
negative feedback.
In the end there is just too many of us and anything other than a big drop
in population will not help.
At the moment my money is on a major war for the one true god resulting in a
pre-industrialized society with matching population.
Oz
>In article <c5pY29AN...@OzHome.com>,
> Oz <O...@mailcatch.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> >> Probably too late.
>> >
>> >Let's hope you are wrong.
>
>> Indeed, but I can see nothing achievable to significantly reduce mans
>> CO2 emissions in the next 100 years.
>
>I sadly have to say I tend to agree. Politicians say a lot and do little;
>
> a large proportion of the population don't believe there is a problem and
>less still that they ought to be be affected by any changes.
Lets face it if we were genuinely concerned we would be seriously
forcing through the building of 20 nuclear powerstations as an urgent
stopgap. There are no current known-to-be-viable solutions.
We aren't.
>But:
>
>Possibly the passing of peak oil supply will break the present system.
No
>Possibly the dominance of materialism that has dictated the pace in my
>lifetime will pass.
No
>However I am not inclined to shrug my shoulders. I think everything is
>worth fighting for to the last.
It will happen when the lights start going out/petrol is rationed.
This will be 20 years too late.
--
Oz
Oz
>Oz wrote:
>
><snip oznoxiousness>
>
>>>No I did not mention photosynthesis as being damaged, I was referring to
>>>pollution of the oceans being a possible cause of reduction of
>>>sequestration of CO2 by marine life.
>>
>> Generally pollution levels are low.
>
>This is your opinion, it also depends on definitions of "pollution", I have
>mentioned two polluting mechanisms, one heavy metals which may have a
>disproportionate effect at low levels
estuary only.
>and secondly the acidulating effect
>of CO2 dissolved in the ocean as the ocean reaches equilibrium with the
>atmosphere, as I said this accounts for about 45% of the "industrial"
>excess of CO2 dumped to atmosphere. The atmosphere is the smallest and most
>sensitive "organ" of gaia.
Maybe, but CO2 levels similar to currently have existed in the recent
(<1MYA) past.
>> The taw estuary isn't 'the ocean' and it was lead tetraethyl used in
>> anti-boat fouling treatments.
>
>Another obtuse reply. I gave the cite of a chap that studied the effect of
>heavy metals and who chose the Tawe estuary because it was local to his
>university and he could make direct comaprisons with less polluted areas
>nearby. The lead was in mineral form as it was leached from mine tailings
>higher up the valley.
Its still a tint little volume compared to the ocean.
0.003ppm lead in seawater or as 1km^3 = 10^9m^2=10^9T that's 3T lead per
cubic km.
>> Tricky when you simultaneously cut down the forests.
>> Also do not forget that todays tundra may be tomorrow's forest (see
>> canada), so you may be less wrong than you thought.
>
>In fact there is a large response shown in the growth of aspen in Canada
>which is possibly due to both longer growing season and increased
>availability of CO2
Quite. It won't be enough though.
--
Oz
Oz
>
>In the end there is just too many of us and anything other than a big drop in
>population will not help.
Very true.
>
>At the moment my money is on a major war for the one true god resulting in a
>pre-industrialized society with matching population.
Very likely.
Might be a tad late for stopping global warming though.
These societies were very effective at deforesting the entire middle
east from morocco to Burma.
--
Oz
Oz
>As I know very little about the subject I feel fully qualified to open the
>discussion:-)
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=41854
--
Oz
Tim Lamb
Is *black* carbon that much of a warming issue? Nasty stuff down your
lungs but inert generally.
regards
>
--
Tim Lamb
Tim Lamb
>Robert Seago <rjs...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
>>In article <c5pY29AN...@OzHome.com>,
>> Oz <O...@mailcatch.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> >
>>> >> Probably too late.
>>> >
>>> >Let's hope you are wrong.
>>
>>> Indeed, but I can see nothing achievable to significantly reduce mans
>>> CO2 emissions in the next 100 years.
>>
>>I sadly have to say I tend to agree. Politicians say a lot and do little;
>>
>> a large proportion of the population don't believe there is a problem and
>>less still that they ought to be be affected by any changes.
>
>Lets face it if we were genuinely concerned we would be seriously
>forcing through the building of 20 nuclear powerstations as an urgent
>stopgap. There are no current known-to-be-viable solutions.
Shouldn't we be doing this on security and cost grounds even if CO2 was
not an issue?
Why can't the generating hall be fed with steam from a new reactor while
the old one is decommissioned?
>
>We aren't.
Political? Foreign energy companies? Labour lost votes? Why?
>
>>But:
>>
>>Possibly the passing of peak oil supply will break the present system.
>
>No
>
>>Possibly the dominance of materialism that has dictated the pace in my
>>lifetime will pass.
>
>No
>
>>However I am not inclined to shrug my shoulders. I think everything is
>>worth fighting for to the last.
>
>It will happen when the lights start going out/petrol is rationed.
>
>This will be 20 years too late.
Yes.
regards
>
--
Tim Lamb
Oz
>In message <mQCGMXDn...@OzHome.com>, Oz <O...@mailcatch.com> writes
>>Robert Seago <rjs...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
>>> a large proportion of the population don't believe there is a problem and
>>>less still that they ought to be be affected by any changes.
>>
>>Lets face it if we were genuinely concerned we would be seriously
>>forcing through the building of 20 nuclear powerstations as an urgent
>>stopgap. There are no current known-to-be-viable solutions.
>
>Shouldn't we be doing this on security and cost grounds even if CO2 was
>not an issue?
Would be a smart move.
>Why can't the generating hall be fed with steam from a new reactor while
>the old one is decommissioned?
It probably could, if there was room to build side-by-side.
>>We aren't.
>
>Political? Foreign energy companies? Labour lost votes? Why?
Political fear and lack of will AND
I don't think politicians believe in global warming, let alone high fuel
prices, at least not in their parliament...
--
Oz
Oz
>In message <QgkLg6D8...@OzHome.com>, Oz <O...@mailcatch.com> writes
>>Tim Lamb <t...@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>As I know very little about the subject I feel fully qualified to open the
>>>discussion:-)
>>
>>http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=41854
>
>Is *black* carbon that much of a warming issue?
Cooling in eastern asia,
warming on glaciers...
>Nasty stuff down your lungs but
>inert generally.
Oxymoron.
--
Oz
andrew
>>This is your opinion, it also depends on definitions of "pollution", I
>>have
>>mentioned two polluting mechanisms, one heavy metals which may have a
>>disproportionate effect at low levels
>
> estuary only.
Just because the research was done in an esturay doen't mean the results are
not applicable elsewhere.
>
> Maybe, but CO2 levels similar to currently have existed in the recent
> (<1MYA) past.
Not so, current levels haven't been seen since over 2.1 million years ago
and possibly 15 million years ago. In the past 450,000 years there have
been two peaks of 312ppm, most of the rest of the time it has been over CO2
and too cold for man to live on european latitudes. We're currently at
380ppm and even my school text books, which must have been out of date even
then, were quoting 300ppm IIRC.
>
> Its still a tint little volume compared to the ocean.
> 0.003ppm lead in seawater or as 1km^3 = 10^9m^2=10^9T that's 3T lead per
> cubic km.
Which is exactly the point, very low concentrations of lead may have
inhibited the ocean from sequestering CO2 as calcium carbonate.
>
> Quite. It won't be enough though.
>
>
No, nature will require a helping hand too.
AJH
Oz
>Oz wrote:
>
>
>>>This is your opinion, it also depends on definitions of "pollution", I
>>>have
>>>mentioned two polluting mechanisms, one heavy metals which may have a
>>>disproportionate effect at low levels
>>
>> estuary only.
>
>Just because the research was done in an esturay doen't mean the results are
>not applicable elsewhere.
But its a known huge leap to arbitrarily extend it to the open ocean and
nearly always completely wrong.
>> Maybe, but CO2 levels similar to currently have existed in the recent
>> (<1MYA) past.
>
>Not so, current levels haven't been seen since over 2.1 million years ago
>and possibly 15 million years ago. In the past 450,000 years there have
>been two peaks of 312ppm, most of the rest of the time it has been over CO2
>and too cold for man to live on european latitudes. We're currently at
>380ppm and even my school text books, which must have been out of date even
>then, were quoting 300ppm IIRC.
You clearly can't be arsed to read the url I posted.
>> Its still a tint little volume compared to the ocean.
>> 0.003ppm lead in seawater or as 1km^3 = 10^9m^2=10^9T that's 3T lead per
>> cubic km.
>
>Which is exactly the point, very low concentrations of lead may have
>inhibited the ocean from sequestering CO2 as calcium carbonate.
<sigh>
No much of a scientific background, have you?
>> Quite. It won't be enough though.
>
>No, nature will require a helping hand too.
Nature will survive global warming as it has in the past.
--
Oz
Bob Martin
>
>No much of a scientific background, have you?
Pot. Kettle. Black. ??
>Nature will survive global warming as it has in the past.
True, but how bad will it get, and how many million years will it take to recover?
Oz
>in 36950 20091216 071827 Oz <O...@mailcatch.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>No much of a scientific background, have you?
>
>Pot. Kettle. Black. ??
Tsk...
>>Nature will survive global warming as it has in the past.
>
>True, but how bad will it get, and how many million years will it take to
>recover?
Recover from what? During the time of the dinosaurs there was no ice,
CO2 levels were high and dinosaurs flourished at the poles.
--
Oz
Oh No
Regards
--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
braces)
Oz
>Thus spake Oz <O...@mailcatch.com>
>>Bob Martin <bob.m...@excite.com> writes
>>>in 36950 20091216 071827 Oz <O...@mailcatch.com> wrote:
>>>>Nature will survive global warming as it has in the past.
>>>
>>>True, but how bad will it get, and how many million years will it take to
>>>recover?
>>
>>Recover from what? During the time of the dinosaurs there was no ice,
>>CO2 levels were high and dinosaurs flourished at the poles.
>>
>So what can we conclude? That Dinosaurs had dreadful problems with wind?
Since they are closely related to birds, you (as an ex chicken farmer)
are more expert than me.
My point is that life flourished.
--
Oz
Bob Martin
251 million years ago a rise of 6degC wiped out almost all life on earth.
Of course the planet will survive, as will many plant and animal species,
but I think most people are concerned with the survival of the human race.
A two to three degree rise would have serious consequences for us.
Oz
>251 million years ago a rise of 6degC wiped out almost all life on earth.
I don't think there is any good evidence for the cause of the permian
extinction and frankly I doubt 6C would have been enough.
>Of
>course the planet will survive, as will many plant and animal species, but I
>think most people are concerned with the survival of the human race. A two to
>three degree rise would have serious consequences for us.
Yes, so lets start by putting in 20 nuclear power stations to tide us
over the next 30 years RIGHT NOW.
Oh, so its not THAT much of a perceived problem then?
Personally I think it IS a problem but not enough people will drop their
political stance to actually solve the problem.
Until the lights go out, when it will be too late.
So we will have to live with it come what may. Get real.
--
Oz
Oh No
Oz
>Thus spake Oz <O...@mailcatch.com>
>>Oh No <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> writes
>>>Thus spake Oz <O...@mailcatch.com>
>>>>Bob Martin <bob.m...@excite.com> writes
>>>>>in 36950 20091216 071827 Oz <O...@mailcatch.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Nature will survive global warming as it has in the past.
>>>>>
>>>>>True, but how bad will it get, and how many million years will it take to
>>>>>recover?
>>>>
>>>>Recover from what? During the time of the dinosaurs there was no ice,
>>>>CO2 levels were high and dinosaurs flourished at the poles.
>>>>
>>>So what can we conclude? That Dinosaurs had dreadful problems with wind?
>>
>>Since they are closely related to birds, you (as an ex chicken farmer)
>>are more expert than me.
>>
>>My point is that life flourished.
>>
>in spite of the smell :-)
I bow to your superior knowledge.
Like the new paper, though.
Got another one planned?
--
Oz
Buddenbrooks
"Oz" <O...@mailcatch.com> wrote in message news:1C6iIJGI...@OzHome.com...
> Bob Martin <bob.m...@excite.com> writes
>
> Personally I think it IS a problem but not enough people will drop their
> political stance to actually solve the problem.
>
> Until the lights go out, when it will be too late.
>
> So we will have to live with it come what may. Get real.
>
The reality is that people that cannot solve a problem handle it by
bullying those that can.
Managers with a status of 'problem solvers' are generally skilled at
delegating to the right people.
Politicians are particularly skilled at delegation and will never themselves
solve this problem.
A political solution will compromise where there is only one solution that
will work. Particularly if failure is more than 2 elections away.
In the long term renewable is the only stable solution, your Nuclear power
stations are the bridge between now and then.
For balance, when you feel guilty about a few hundred lbs of CO2 you put
into the atmosphere:
The atmosphere has a mass of about five zettagrams (5x1018kg or 5
pentatonnes).
Oh No
Berry or Steve Carlip) has had it nearly a month now. Absolutely no one
wants to think that spectral shifts might be wrong. I find it difficult
to come to terms with the level of incompetence of some of the reports.
I am playing around with spectral typing of stars. Due to the fact that
spectral types are based on spectrograms of standard stars whose
distances were not known, and from before the theory of stellar
evolution was developed, the system turns out to be totally screwed up
when you do a H-R diagram based on Hipparcos parallaxes. I suspect no
one will want to know about that either.
Bob Martin
>Bob Martin <bob.m...@excite.com> writes
>
>>251 million years ago a rise of 6degC wiped out almost all life on earth.
>
>I don't think there is any good evidence for the cause of the permian
>extinction and frankly I doubt 6C would have been enough.
>
>>Of
>>course the planet will survive, as will many plant and animal species, but I
>>think most people are concerned with the survival of the human race. A two to
>>three degree rise would have serious consequences for us.
>
>Yes, so lets start by putting in 20 nuclear power stations to tide us
>over the next 30 years RIGHT NOW.
>
>Oh, so its not THAT much of a perceived problem then?
What makes you think I don't agree with that?
>
>Personally I think it IS a problem but not enough people will drop their
>political stance to actually solve the problem.
>
>Until the lights go out, when it will be too late.
>
>So we will have to live with it come what may. Get real.
Your reply seems to bear no relevance to what I said!
andrew
> You clearly can't be arsed to read the url I posted.
> No much of a scientific background, have you?
Typical coarse ad hominem remarks from Oz again
>
>>> Quite. It won't be enough though.
>>
>>No, nature will require a helping hand too.
>
> Nature will survive global warming as it has in the past.
Which means what? We all realise life of some sort will survive major
climate changes which humans may not. This has nothing to do with whether
man can intervene to assist natural processes to mitigate what may be a man
made change.
AJH
Oz
>I've rewritten and resubmitted the RQG stuff. The board member (Mike Berry or
>Steve Carlip) has had it nearly a month now.
Ooops...
You did rub steve up the wrong way, well it was mutual really.
>Absolutely no one wants to think
>that spectral shifts might be wrong. I find it difficult to come to terms with
>the level of incompetence of some of the reports. I am playing around with
>spectral typing of stars. Due to the fact that spectral types are based on
>spectrograms of standard stars whose distances were not known, and from before
>the theory of stellar evolution was developed, the system turns out to be
>totally screwed up when you do a H-R diagram based on Hipparcos parallaxes. I
>suspect no one will want to know about that either.
They may. That's observational-type physics so it either works or it
doesn't,
--
Oz
Oz
It means you either DO something now, or put up with the consequences.
Since there is no agreement to actually do something (as opposed to
promise) to reduce greenhouse emissions then more warming we will get.
Start planning for that. Until I hear greens and activists fighting for
lots of nuclear power stations then I will consider it as merely a
political stance by people who don't really believe it.
Or who do not live in the real world.
Or who are very stupid.
Possibly all three.
--
Oz
Buddenbrooks
"Oz" <O...@mailcatch.com> wrote in message news:mGHmZ6A8...@OzHome.com...
> It means you either DO something now, or put up with the consequences.
>
Since the planet started as unviable for humans and will end the same, we
are only delaying the inevitable.
Statistics ensure that the likelihood of any of us as individuals will have
direct descendents a few thousand years in the future.
Evolution ensures that in the million of years scale 'Man' will not exist as
such.
Earth is an experiment that will run far longer than 'Man', the current
state is just a small ripple, let it run and enjoy the ride.
grey...@mail.com
>
> "Oz" <O...@mailcatch.com> wrote in message news:mGHmZ6A8...@OzHome.com...
>
>> It means you either DO something now, or put up with the consequences.
>>
>
>
> Since the planet started as unviable for humans and will end the same, we
> are only delaying the inevitable.
>
There was an Australian song some years ago, went on about damaging
the environment, the refrain/chorus was
"Don't worry, Australia is good for at least another ten years"
--
greymaus
.
.
...
Oz
>A political solution will compromise where there is only one solution that will
>work. Particularly if failure is more than 2 elections away.
Yes, its a problem with our system of management. China, a mostly
benevolent dictatorship, has another way. The ideal ould be for us to be
nearer to china's system where major works that are required for all are
rather quickly done as a strategy (with proper compensation) rather than
as an option.
>In the long term renewable is the only stable solution, your Nuclear power
>stations are the bridge between now and then.
Yes, although there is a century to a millennia++ of easily available
nuclear fuel. Certainly there are 'better' ways to get energy but sadly
mostly in countries with poor government and few people.
--
Oz
Derek Moody
<URL:mailto:O...@mailcatch.com> wrote:
> Yes, although there is a century to a millennia++ of easily available
> nuclear fuel. Certainly there are 'better' ways to get energy but sadly
> mostly in countries with poor government and few people.
The fuel is such a small part of the running cost of a reactor that
estimates based on current prices are not a complete picture.
At around double the unit electricity price large parts of Scotland, the
West Country, and Ireland might become attractive to prospectors.
Cheerio,
--
Buddenbrooks
"Derek Moody" <de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ant18093...@strongarm.half-baked-idea.co.uk...
> In article <uQJE8RBG...@OzHome.com>, Oz
> <URL:mailto:O...@mailcatch.com> wrote:
>
> The fuel is such a small part of the running cost of a reactor that
> estimates based on current prices are not a complete picture.
>
social ones like wage costs.
Bringing the minimum wage down solves wage costs.
Oh No
>Oh No <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> writes
>
>>I've rewritten and resubmitted the RQG stuff. The board member (Mike Berry or
>>Steve Carlip) has had it nearly a month now.
>
>Ooops...
>You did rub steve up the wrong way, well it was mutual really.
Actually I don't think that is so. At least not on Usenet. We have
actually had very few exchanges. He has usually restricted himself to
correcting me on a single point, when he has been right.
>>Absolutely no one wants to think
>>that spectral shifts might be wrong. I find it difficult to come to
>>terms with
>>the level of incompetence of some of the reports. I am playing around with
>>spectral typing of stars. Due to the fact that spectral types are based on
>>spectrograms of standard stars whose distances were not known, and
>>from before
>>the theory of stellar evolution was developed, the system turns out to be
>>totally screwed up when you do a H-R diagram based on Hipparcos parallaxes. I
>>suspect no one will want to know about that either.
>
>They may. That's observational-type physics so it either works or it
>doesn't,
>
I would have said that of the radial velocity tests.
Regards
Oz
>>They may. That's observational-type physics so it either works or it
>>doesn't,
>>
>I would have said that of the radial velocity tests.
Er, yes, that's true.
NB Liked the techie exchange on infinite hilbert spaces and delta
functions...
Oz
Yes, THAT Oz....