|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 11:20 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
You obviously know absolutely nothing about carbon dioxide. The relationship between co2 and temperature isn't exponential. You presuppose that emiting more co2 than 100 years ago has a weightier impact, but it's simply not true. When a long distance runner is in a race, more energy is required to keep up the desirable pace as time goes on than at the beginning. Same with co2 and warming - the more profound effects on warming occur at the beginning of the process and, as time goes on, greater amounts of co2 emitted mean smaller gains in warming. The 21st century will very likely be the same as the 20th - negligible heating. |
Someone just compared a planet's climate to a runner's energy expenditure. And it wasnt a joke.
If it were only the stupid people who'd be killed by climate change I wouldnt be as concerned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| Someone just compared a planet's climate to a runner's energy expenditure. And it wasnt a joke. |
...says the expert on atmospheric physics
| comm wrote: |
| If it were only the stupid people who'd be killed by climate change I wouldnt be as concerned. |
Aw, someone who lives a 13 hour flight away from home is concerned about climate change, eh? Bless. And I suppose that's a homemade wooden laptop you're typing on, too... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sergio,
What policy prescriptions, if any, would you enact to mitigate the effects of C02 emissions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Double post
Last edited by Big_Bird on Fri Sep 03, 2010 4:58 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
Sergio,
What policy prescriptions, if any, would you enact to mitigate the effects of C02 emissions? |
Here's a little something we could be looking at:
Waste Britain: UK's emissions could be cut at flick of a switch
| Quote: |
| Simple measures such as turning electrical appliances off at the mains and installing energy-efficient lightbulbs could slash the UK's carbon dioxide emissions by about 40 megatonnes a year, or up to one third, according to new research which says that cutting electricity consumption is up to 60 per cent more effective than previously thought. Such basic lifestyle changes would be the equivalent of removing about 10 large gas-fired power stations from operation. |
| Quote: |
Caroline Lucas MP, the leader of the Green Party, said: "The Green Party welcomes this research, which helps shed further light on the potential to cut CO2 emissions from energy use in the home. We need to step up public information about climate change and about the need to take simple measures like switching off unwanted lights. Pump out more information and we'll pump out fewer emissions.
"But it's clearly not enough to just encourage people to cut their energy use. The Government should take every step it can, for instance by banning the fitting of stand-by switches to televisions and by enforcing tighter regulations on the energy-efficiency of electrical goods and by setting higher energy standards for homes. Those are actions that would cost nothing and hurt no one, but would have a significant impact on overall energy use."
Dr Hawkes said his new estimates showed that turning off all appliances at the mains when going to bed or on holiday would save around 100kg of CO2 per year; installing 10 energy-efficient lightbulbs would save up to 350kg of CO2 per year; and hanging out wet washing to dry rather than using tumble dryers would save 260kg of CO2 per year. "If every house [took these steps], we'd save about 40 megatonnes of CO2 a year, which is the equivalent to the annual CO2 production of about seven million houses [a third of all households] in the UK � that's a lot!" he said.
|
There's all sorts of things we could be doing to minimise our use of fossil fuels, without necessarily compromising quality of life. We're going to have to wean ourselves off fossil fuels down the line ANYWAY - given that there is not an infinite supply. Why not start making the transition now?
Some of these steps would even be in our own immediate interest.
| Quote: |
Case study: Saving money the easy way
John and Eriko Elford and their daughter Amalia, of Totnes, Devon.
"We've had low-energy lightbulbs ever since they came out, seven or eight years ago. I think they've definitely saved us money; our electricity bill is about �200-�220 a year. They're dearer, but the money you save in the end is worth it. We turn off lights when not using them. My daughter needs encouraging, but she does turn some things off. I always turn the TV off at the wall. There's not much we leave on stand- by except the computer router and my wife's electric toothbrush." |
Or we could twiddle our thumbs, consult Pollyanna bullshit paid for by Exxon-Mobil, jeer at some imaginary 'leftist-greenie cult' and generally do everything to cut off our own noses to spite our faces. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The whole thing is a complete load of horse shit. However, just to shut you people up I will accept - demand - a sensible and escalating carbon tax. Please, just do not demand cap and trade. Goldman has enough already. Just increase relevant taxes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
I will leave the global warming advocates to argue with a Nobel Prize winner name of Dr. Robert B. Laughlin
http://www.theamericanscholar.org/what-the-earth-knows/
"The Earth has suffered mass volcanic explosions, floods, meteor impacts, mountain formation and all manner of other abuses greater than anything people could inflict and it's still here. It's a survivor."
Laughlin points out that the man-made CO2 will be (over time) absorbed into the oceans and over a longer period of time will be transfered into rock. After thousands of years the atmosphere will be the same as it was before. Granted that's a long time in human terms, but a few moments by geological ones.
He also and correctly points out that the current hot spell is a brief blip in geological time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| The whole thing is a complete load of horse shit. However, just to shut you people up I will accept - demand - a sensible and escalating carbon tax. Please, just do not demand cap and trade. Goldman has enough already. Just increase relevant taxes. |
Cap & Trade is dead, unless retiring GOP Senators choose to go along with it.
Carbon tax will look more attractive when Obama has to weigh increasing income against holding his promise to keep income taxes on those making less than $250k steady. Along with enacting a VAT, its a way out. But I don't see the GOP bending to a Carbon tax. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
I will leave the global warming advocates to argue with a Nobel Prize winner name of Dr. Robert B. Laughlin
http://www.theamericanscholar.org/what-the-earth-knows/
"The Earth has suffered mass volcanic explosions, floods, meteor impacts, mountain formation and all manner of other abuses greater than anything people could inflict and it's still here. It's a survivor."
Laughlin points out that the man-made CO2 will be (over time) absorbed into the oceans and over a longer period of time will be transfered into rock. After thousands of years the atmosphere will be the same as it was before. Granted that's a long time in human terms, but a few moments by geological ones.
He also and correctly points out that the current hot spell is a brief blip in geological time. |
I don't understand your argument (and I doubt you do either).
From your page:
| Quote: |
| Common sense tells us that damaging a thing this old is somewhat easier to imagine than it is to accomplish�like invading Russia. The earth has suffered mass volcanic explosions, floods, meteor impacts, mountain formation, and all manner of other abuses greater than anything people could inflict, and it�s still here. It�s a survivor. We don�t know exactly how the earth recovered from these devastations, because the rocks don�t say very much about that, but we do know that it did recover�the proof of it being that we are here. |
Yeah, so what? The Earth is billions of years old. It's going to be around a few billion years more. But species don't last for billions of years. They sometimes manage a few million. And then they die out for one reason or another. Perhaps a new virus they can't cope with. Perhaps a competitor with an edge moves in and muscles in on what used to be their exclusive previous food and resources. Perhaps a new species is introduced to a terrirtory with devasting results. Or perhaps their habitat becomes degraded, and no longer supports them. In the end, the Earth keeps going, but the various species who live on it kark it, one by one.
| Quote: |
| On the scales of time relevant to itself, the earth doesn�t care about any of these governments or their legislation. It doesn�t care whether you turn off your air conditioner, refrigerator, and television set. It doesn�t notice when you turn down your thermostat and drive a hybrid car. These actions simply spread the pain over a few centuries, the bat of an eyelash as far as the earth is concerned, and leave the end result exactly the same: all the fossil fuel that used to be in the ground is now in the air, and none is left to burn. The earth plans to dissolve the bulk of this carbon dioxide into its oceans in about a millennium, leaving the concentration in the atmosphere slightly higher than today�s. Over tens of millennia after that, or perhaps hundreds, it will then slowly transfer the excess carbon dioxide into its rocks, eventually returning levels in the sea and air to what they were before humans arrived on the scene. The process will take an eternity from the human perspective, but it will be only a brief instant of geologic time. |
So The Earth doesn't give a flying f*** about humans? This is what your (old wrinkly, soon to be dead) champion wants to tell us. Er...OK. So Mr Earth won't give a rat's arse if our civilisation turns to crap and falls apart. And Earthy-wearthy won't give a rat's arse if some of us die out - or if indeed we all kark it. I'm sure Mr Earthy-wearthy didn't shed a tear for all those dead dinosaurs. You could freeze him and you could bake him and you could slam a thousand asteroids the size of Switzerland into Mr Earthy-wearthy's hide, and he wouldn't give a toss. So what? That's not the issue. The issue is the welfare of human civilisation.
And so the atmosphere may well return to it how it was before we were on the scene - in a few thousand years. Perhaps when much of mankind has karked it. That's fine. For The Earth. But I'm not The Earth. Are you? I'm a frail composition of cells and organic compounds. And so are my kids.
This argument seems a bit ridiculous from a (unsuicidal) human's point of view. Fine if you are The Earth, of course.
Last edited by Big_Bird on Fri Sep 03, 2010 2:13 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
I will leave the global warming advocates to argue with a Nobel Prize winner name of Dr. Robert B. Laughlin
http://www.theamericanscholar.org/what-the-earth-knows/
"The Earth has suffered mass volcanic explosions, floods, meteor impacts, mountain formation and all manner of other abuses greater than anything people could inflict and it's still here. It's a survivor."
Laughlin points out that the man-made CO2 will be (over time) absorbed into the oceans and over a longer period of time will be transfered into rock. After thousands of years the atmosphere will be the same as it was before. Granted that's a long time in human terms, but a few moments by geological ones.
He also and correctly points out that the current hot spell is a brief blip in geological time. |
Of course the Earth will survive. Other scientists are more worried about how global warming might effect human quality of life.
Oh and if you're going to name-drop Nobel prize winners, guess who else won a Nobel prize.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Nobel_Peace_Prize |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Is this what passes for 'humor' among conservatives? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
I will leave the global warming advocates to argue with a Nobel Prize winner name of Dr. Robert B. Laughlin
http://www.theamericanscholar.org/what-the-earth-knows/
"The Earth has suffered mass volcanic explosions, floods, meteor impacts, mountain formation and all manner of other abuses greater than anything people could inflict and it's still here. It's a survivor."
Laughlin points out that the man-made CO2 will be (over time) absorbed into the oceans and over a longer period of time will be transfered into rock. After thousands of years the atmosphere will be the same as it was before. Granted that's a long time in human terms, but a few moments by geological ones.
He also and correctly points out that the current hot spell is a brief blip in geological time. |
I don't understand your argument (and I doubt you do either).
From your page:
| Quote: |
| Common sense tells us that damaging a thing this old is somewhat easier to imagine than it is to accomplish�like invading Russia. The earth has suffered mass volcanic explosions, floods, meteor impacts, mountain formation, and all manner of other abuses greater than anything people could inflict, and it�s still here. It�s a survivor. We don�t know exactly how the earth recovered from these devastations, because the rocks don�t say very much about that, but we do know that it did recover�the proof of it being that we are here. |
Yeah, so what? The Earth is billions of years old. It's going to be around a few billion years more. But species don't last for billions of years. They sometimes manage a few million. And then they die out for one reason or another. Perhaps a new virus they can't cope with. Perhaps a competitor with an edge moves in and muscles in on what used to be their exclusive previous food and resources. Perhaps a new species is introduced to a terrirtory with devasting results. Or perhaps their habitat becomes degraded, and no longer supports them. In the end, the Earth keeps going, but the various species who live on it kark it, one by one.
| Quote: |
| On the scales of time relevant to itself, the earth doesn�t care about any of these governments or their legislation. It doesn�t care whether you turn off your air conditioner, refrigerator, and television set. It doesn�t notice when you turn down your thermostat and drive a hybrid car. These actions simply spread the pain over a few centuries, the bat of an eyelash as far as the earth is concerned, and leave the end result exactly the same: all the fossil fuel that used to be in the ground is now in the air, and none is left to burn. The earth plans to dissolve the bulk of this carbon dioxide into its oceans in about a millennium, leaving the concentration in the atmosphere slightly higher than today�s. Over tens of millennia after that, or perhaps hundreds, it will then slowly transfer the excess carbon dioxide into its rocks, eventually returning levels in the sea and air to what they were before humans arrived on the scene. The process will take an eternity from the human perspective, but it will be only a brief instant of geologic time. |
So The Earth doesn't give a flying f*** about humans? This is what your (old wrinkly, soon to be dead) champion wants to tell us. Er...OK. So Mr Earth won't give a rat's arse if our civilisation turns to crap and falls apart. And Earthy-wearthy won't give a rat's arse if some of us die out - or if indeed we all kark it. I'm sure Mr Earthy-wearthy didn't shed a tear for all those dead dinosaurs. You could freeze him and you could bake him and you could slam a thousand asteroids the size of Switzerland into Mr Earthy-wearthy's hide, and he wouldn't give a toss. So what? That's not the issue. The issue is the welfare of human civilisation.
And so the atmosphere may well return to it how it was before we were on the scene - in a few thousand years. Perhaps when much of mankind has karked it. That's fine. For The Earth. But I'm not The Earth. Are you? I'm a frail composition of cells and organic compounds. And so are my kids.
This argument seems a bit ridiculous from a (unsuicidal) human's point of view. Fine if you are The Earth, of course. |
He's pointing out that the Earth will not be destroyed nor made uninhabitable for humans. Sure the welfare of human civilization might suffer a bit but nothing like it would were the IPCC's goals implemented immediately. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:56 pm Post subject: Re: You wouldn't read about it: climate scientists right |
|
|
[/quote]
Except that Climategate was only one of many.
Here is a list of 'gates' and errors (some of which were even published in the 2007 IPCC report..looks like the Himalayan glacier thing WASN'T the only only major error after all).
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092--.html
For the 'gates or errors that cropped up in the 2007 report see
Russia-GateII
AfricaGate
ReefGate
DutchGate
PeerReviewGate
AmazonGate
IceGate |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So far it's looking like another Club of Rome. Only this time they've got computers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
