Global warming… quicker the better i say…am freezing…
I have only two (unrelated) questions.
Q1. If I put cold milk into a thermos flask, it keeps cold but if I put hot tea in, it stays hot. When the we’ve finished warming the globe, will the thermos still know which way to go ?
Q2. So . . . . is the ozone layer fixed now then ?
Kyrbo:
I’d think those quite much explain why that claim of 30% increase in CO2 levels meaning temperature raising for 30% doesn’t hold true . To the “by now” part I’ve already pretty much answered in my previous post (like emission reductions done today begun to be visible around 2050). Atmosphere is such large system that it reacts very slowly to changes and for warming to fully happen we have to wait for several decades.Carryfast:
I don’t believe in the inertia theory either as in most places temperatures go from relatively cold at night to relatively hot during the day in a matter of hours just by the sun’s radiation working on the air mass.What do mean with the inertia theory in this context?
PS. when writing this response I probably missed some things you had wrote in your posts, but that wasn’t intentional. This post just grew so bloody long I lost some of my interest in writing this towards the end…PPS. Writing of this took ages, please don’t be so disbelieving
That’s what I meant by the inertia theory which is the thing on which most of your argument falls down on.It does’nt take 100 years or several decades to raise the temperature by around a 100 % temperature increase in around 12 hours between day and night time temperatures in most cases so why should there be any different time lag for temperature increases caused by the so called greenhouse effect?.There was also nothing there which would show as to why,if C02 is really the problem gas which it’s made out to be,that the so called general global temperature increase would’nt be directly the same in percentage terms as the increase in the so called greenhouse gases.The fact is we are’nt seeing any general global temperature increases over the last 100 years which would directly correlate with any so called 30 % increase in CO2 if that gas is the problem it’s being made out to be.The deforestation issue is probably enough to explain such an increase in CO2 in any event not fossil fuel usage.Burning dead plant life is’nt going to effect photosynthesis which turns CO2 into oxygen.But removing living plant life will.On Earth we’ve got what seems to be a miracle going on in which plant life can turn a so called greenhouse gas (CO2) which forms only .03% of the atmosphere into one which is’nt a greenhouse gas and which forms 28% of that atmosphere and allows us to survive as a by product of it’s breathing mechanism while we provide that plant life with that small amount of the gas which it needs to live on by our breathing mechanism and relatively recently by using some of the dead plant life for fuel.Remove 30 % of that living plant life over the last 100 years or so and you’ve got a 30% increase in C02 levels.The miracle seems to be that such a decrease in plant life does’nt translate into a 30% decrease in oxygen levels which is’nt surprising considering the miracle whereby how different it would all be on earth if it was oxygen which formed .03% of the atmosphere and CO2 which formed 28%.But it’s living trees and plants which make it all possible.Having said that the world’s population of people has increased at a similar,if not more than,the rate as fossil fuel use over the last 100 years?.Do you know how much CO2 each person on Earth breathes out every day?.Combine that figure with the loss in the capacity to recycle that back into oxygen and you might find the biggest reason for the (arguable) 30 % CO2 increase in the atmosphere.But the government seem to want to use all that as an excuse to increase taxation on fossil fuel use here or stop it’s use altogether which won’t make the slightest difference.
I cant be arsed to read all these quotes plucked inanely from Wikipedia media or whatever, but have my own theories.
If there is such a thing as global temperature elevation, it isn’t caused by modern transport. The ICE has been around over 100 years, this time the ICE means internal combustion engine. during the industrial revolution every factory had a chimney belching soot and smoke, heat from machinery and steam rising into the atmosphere from drafty mills.
Now the global threat if any comes from Portacabins 
Portacabins you ask? How?
Mac Donald’s and Burger King are to blame, they have created a need for cheap beef, so the farmers in Brazil have ripped out huge tracts of forest to make room for more cows, these cows are in turn fed on crap which make them burp and ■■■■ more, they are killed before there life is naturally over, the milk farmers produce a tasteless liquid full of bacteria by spraying man made chemicals onto the land which the cows chew to give them even more methane gas. This released into the atmosphere plus the chemicals sprayed on the fields and the growth enhancer hormones have caused thousands of loonies to descend on Copenhagen. They will feast on cheap cuts of meat on the smorgasbord which is made up of frikadellar and hakkebeef, bacon and sour milk
From the days of the Morris 1000 and sidevalve Ford Pop, engine emissions have decreased to almost nil, but the scourge of Mac Donald’s has taken over the world.
I gave up my membership of the Flat Earth Søciety many years ago!
i’ve got an idea. for one week the whole of the uk transport system stops. no cars, trucks, tractors, motorbikes, trains, or planes. just fire engines, and ambulances. by doing this we will have given the world our quota in co2 credits, then we can get on with living the remaining 51 weeks.
this must be done in the summer so i can spend the week on the beach.
Wheel Nut,
My crap is all from the good old US of A, none of it from wikewhateveritscalled, just minutes of meetings with my own interpretations alongside a quote or two, cut & paste is only transfer of propaganda as far as I’m concerned, the most important words in my posts came from deep within my own grey matter, in case you’re wondering which words specifically I’ll refresh your memory ‘It’s all a load of bollox’ 
Wheel Nut:
I cant be arsed to read all these quotes……thousands of loonies to descend on Copenhagen
Yeah some of these posts are waaaaaay too long, Kyrbo in particular needs to condense his or her posts. As for all the loonies, how are they getting to Copenhagen? Flying presumably. I’m sure the irony is lost on them 
Carryfast:
Kyrbo:
Carryfast:
I don’t believe in the inertia theory either as in most places temperatures go from relatively cold at night to relatively hot during the day in a matter of hours just by the sun’s radiation working on the air mass.What do mean with the inertia theory in this context?
That’s what I meant by the inertia theory which is the thing on which most of your argument falls down on.It does’nt take 100 years or several decades to raise the temperature by around a 100 % temperature increase in around 12 hours between day and night time temperatures in most cases so why should there be any different time lag for temperature increases caused by the so called greenhouse effect?.
Oh, that clarifies things quite a bit. If I understood correctly, you have all the time been talking about how much increased CO2 levels are affecting the current dates temperature? I completely agree with you on that it doesn’t take 100 years to raise temperature quite a bit as that kind of raise clearly happens on (most) days. I also agree with you that current CO2 levels on a point of interest are affecting to the current days temperature on that place via the greenhouse effect and without any huge delays.
What I though you were claiming was that we’ve already seen all the effects what the current dates increased CO2 levels have caused and things wouldn’t keep changing in the future because of current CO2 levels, which likely isn’t true. Most of my arguments were written with that in mind, although now when I read again beginning of my last post, I noticed I had mixed up this view with some other things in a way which didn’t help the understanding at all.
Carryfast:
There was also nothing there which would show as to why,if C02 is really the problem gas which it’s made out to be,that the so called general global temperature increase would’nt be directly the same in percentage terms as the increase in the so called greenhouse gases.The fact is we are’nt seeing any general global temperature increases over the last 100 years which would directly correlate with any so called 30 % increase in CO2 if that gas is the problem it’s being made out to be.
Well, I’ve already tried to explain why there isn’t any straightforward directly proportional relationship between CO2 levels and temperature. Basically that all comes down to the complexity and amount of different phenomenons happening in atmosphere, how those interact with each other and their surroundings. When taking into account all phenomenons in the atmosphere affecting to the temperature CO2 levels are only one, although important, part. Also, temperature is only a outcome of the phenomenons warming up Earth.
There is nice picture in Wikipedia’s greenhouse effect article (link to the picture) explaining in quite understandable form a simplification of how these phenomenons warming Earth interact. Notice that unit there isn’t temperature, it’s power per area. When CO2 levels change it affects this power per area force (particularly to the part caused by greenhouse effect) and there is much more direct relationship between CO2 levels and this force than with temperature. In fact the NOAA web page which I’ve already couple times referred to gives simplified relationship between change in this radiating force (power per area) and atmospheres CO2 level to be ΔF = 5.35 * ln(C/Co).
Carryfast:
The deforestation issue is probably enough to explain such an increase in CO2 in any event not fossil fuel usage.Burning dead plant life is’nt going to effect photosynthesis which turns CO2 into oxygen.But removing living plant life will.
Yes, like I already agreed in my previous post, removing living plant does reduce the total amount of photosynthesis happening. This also affects to the amount of CO2 which can be taken off from the atmosphere by plants unless similar amount of plants are free to grow as a replacement, right? I’d also think it’s quite self-explanatory that replacement for cut down plants isn’t going to grow when speaking about deforestation. I think this we both agree?
What then happens to the removed plants? They emit CO2 to the atmosphere. This happens either naturally (like through decay) or through some sort of acceleration (like burning the dead plants). These CO2 emissions stay in the atmosphere because there aren’t new plants which would use this CO2 for photosynthesis. Do we still agree? What I interpret from this, is that deforestation increases CO2 levels because CO2 emissions from cut down plants are greater than what currently living plants are able to use through photosynthesis.
Now, if we agreed with the above, please explain me why burning fossil fuels wouldn’t increase atmospheres CO2 levels through the same principle as deforestation increases, if burning fossil fuels would match to the CO2 emissions of deforestation? If we didn’t agree with the reason why deforestation is causing CO2 emission then I’d be keen to hear your version of it.
Carryfast:
On Earth we’ve got what seems to be a miracle going on in which plant life can turn a so called greenhouse gas (CO2) which forms only .03% of the atmosphere into one which is’nt a greenhouse gas and which forms 28% of that atmosphere … Remove 30 % of that living plant life over the last 100 years or so and you’ve got a 30% increase in C02 levels.The miracle seems to be that such a decrease in plant life does’nt translate into a 30% decrease in oxygen levels…
Quote from Wikipedia article, sourced from this scientific publication explains why reduction isn’t going to happen that fast:
“At the current rate of photosynthesis it would take about 2,000 years to regenerate the entire O2 in the present atmosphere.”
Carryfast:
Do you know how much CO2 each person on Earth breathes out every day?.Combine that figure with the loss in the capacity to recycle that back into oxygen and you might find the biggest reason for the (arguable) 30 % CO2 increase in the atmosphere.But the government seem to want to use all that as an excuse to increase taxation on fossil fuel use here or stop it’s use altogether which won’t make the slightest difference.
I’d think amount of CO2 produced annually by mankind breathing is around 2 gigatonnes. I don’t have any reliable source for that, but I found approximately that number from two different web pages, calculated by three different way so I’d say it’s magnitude is about correct (page 1 and page 2). Like I wrote in my previous post, burning fossil fuels released 27 gigatonnes of CO2 into atmosphere at 2004 and amount of CO2 produced by human breath is clearly less than that.
Also, when humans breath out CO2, it’s carbon part obviously comes from various things one has eaten and things humans eat are basically plants or animals feeding on plants. This means all the CO2 humans exhale is originally taken from atmospheres CO2 through plants, hence creating closed loop in which total amount of CO2 doesn’t increase. Of course there is possibility that some really badass trucker feeds himself directly from diesel pumps which would break this closed loop…
Also, I’d think it’s quite clear there isn’t much of arguing if CO2 levels have increased 30% or not. It’s amount is measured from air for decades and it’s amount in the atmosphere in the past can be measured for example from glaciers. Also, amounts of CO2 measured from only few decades old parts of glacier match well to the measurements done from air at that time.
Wheel Nut:
I cant be arsed to read all these quotes plucked inanely from Wikipedia media or whatever…
I’m not exactly sure what inanely means in this context (had to check meaning from dictionary 
), but I put sources visible just to point out I’m not pulling those claims out of the hat. Also, like I said, every source or source for the quoted claim from Wikipedia was what I think to be scientifically reasonably reliable for this forum
Wheel Nut:
…but have my own theories.
I too have a theory, I found it from the Internet 
Global warming has happened because there is less pirates sailing at the seas! Stop hunting those Somalian pirates, they’re just preventing global warming 
bazza123:
Wheel Nut:
I cant be arsed to read all these quotes…Yeah some of these posts are waaaaaay too long, Kyrbo in particular needs to condense his or her posts.
Sorry, but it’s quite difficult to argue in foreign language and keep responses short when replying to multiple complex things without posts going to end up looking something like this:
Yes. No. Yes. No! Yes! You’re an [zb]. I love you too, [zb]. Mods saying: topic locked
The thing with the global warming/climate change debate is it is a very detailed situation, neither side can get their point across with just a few words, add politicians to the mix & those words multiply.
The fact of the matter is that whatever your views, the politicians & ecologists at this meeting should be aware of them, they are our representatives, the people that make the decisions know as much about the science of it all as we do, instead of inane comments such as ‘I couldn’t be bothered to read all the wikipedia stuff’ read through them & try & learn, don’t for one minute think that the outcome of this meeting will not affect you, depending on your views you may benefit from it, I happen to disagree, but I can only disagree because I’ve read it, apathy is a one way ticket to oppression 
newmercman:
The thing with the global warming/climate change debate is it is a very detailed situation, neither side can get their point across with just a few words, add politicians to the mix & those words multiply.The fact of the matter is that whatever your views, the politicians & ecologists at this meeting should be aware of them, they are our representatives, the people that make the decisions know as much about the science of it all as we do, instead of inane comments such as ‘I couldn’t be bothered to read all the wikipedia stuff’ read through them & try & learn, don’t for one minute think that the outcome of this meeting will not affect you, depending on your views you may benefit from it, I happen to disagree, but I can only disagree because I’ve read it, apathy is a one way ticket to oppression
You are correct.
I do read wikipedia and many other things, but there is one thing that I agree with and that we have in common, whatever happens, it is going to cost thee and me money, 
My representatives are not the ones in power at the moment, they are just keeping the seats warm
Wheel Nut:
newmercman:
The thing with the global warming/climate change debate is it is a very detailed situation, neither side can get their point across with just a few words, add politicians to the mix & those words multiply.The fact of the matter is that whatever your views, the politicians & ecologists at this meeting should be aware of them, they are our representatives, the people that make the decisions know as much about the science of it all as we do, instead of inane comments such as ‘I couldn’t be bothered to read all the wikipedia stuff’ read through them & try & learn, don’t for one minute think that the outcome of this meeting will not affect you, depending on your views you may benefit from it, I happen to disagree, but I can only disagree because I’ve read it, apathy is a one way ticket to oppression
You are correct.
I do read wikipedia and many other things, but there is one thing that I agree with and that we have in common, whatever happens, it is going to cost thee and me money,
My representatives are not the ones in power at the moment, they are just keeping the seats warm
That’s the whole agenda here, we’re getting lost in the details, myself included, not one bit of any of this leglisation is about the planet, it’s all about taking our money, governments are throwing trillions around & the thing is, no government has any money, it’s our money, our taxes are the only revenue our governments have. there is widespread fraud amongst the ecological science community, we’re paying for it, the media is very quiet about it though, unusual, normally they’re shouting from the rooftops about sleaze, except that for the most part the media are left wing, I’ve worked as a journalist & you couldn’t walk through the canteen for tripping up over copies of the Guardian, these people have seen the light & they’re not making waves so as to assure their spot in the new world order. Ask anyone with experience of Soviet era Russia, the newspapers & TV news were just an endless party political broadcast.
I will assume that in Copenhagen this evening global warming enthusiasts will be having a ball celebrating the news that British Airways during the festive season will be reducing the number of flights due to proposed industrial action.After all British Airways covers the World…in pollution does it not.
Kyrbo:
Carryfast:
Kyrbo:
Carryfast:
I don’t believe in the inertia theory either as in most places temperatures go from relatively cold at night to relatively hot during the day in a matter of hours just by the sun’s radiation working on the air mass.What do mean with the inertia theory in this context?
That’s what I meant by the inertia theory which is the thing on which most of your argument falls down on.It does’nt take 100 years or several decades to raise the temperature by around a 100 % temperature increase in around 12 hours between day and night time temperatures in most cases so why should there be any different time lag for temperature increases caused by the so called greenhouse effect?.
Oh, that clarifies things quite a bit. If I understood correctly, you have all the time been talking about how much increased CO2 levels are affecting the current dates temperature? I completely agree with you on that it doesn’t take 100 years to raise temperature quite a bit as that kind of raise clearly happens on (most) days. I also agree with you that current CO2 levels on a point of interest are affecting to the current days temperature on that place via the greenhouse effect and without any huge delays.
What I though you were claiming was that we’ve already seen all the effects what the current dates increased CO2 levels have caused and things wouldn’t keep changing in the future because of current CO2 levels, which likely isn’t true. Most of my arguments were written with that in mind, although now when I read again beginning of my last post, I noticed I had mixed up this view with some other things in a way which didn’t help the understanding at all.
Carryfast:
There was also nothing there which would show as to why,if C02 is really the problem gas which it’s made out to be,that the so called general global temperature increase would’nt be directly the same in percentage terms as the increase in the so called greenhouse gases.The fact is we are’nt seeing any general global temperature increases over the last 100 years which would directly correlate with any so called 30 % increase in CO2 if that gas is the problem it’s being made out to be.Well, I’ve already tried to explain why there isn’t any straightforward directly proportional relationship between CO2 levels and temperature. Basically that all comes down to the complexity and amount of different phenomenons happening in atmosphere, how those interact with each other and their surroundings. When taking into account all phenomenons in the atmosphere affecting to the temperature CO2 levels are only one, although important, part. Also, temperature is only a outcome of the phenomenons warming up Earth.
There is nice picture in Wikipedia’s greenhouse effect article (link to the picture) explaining in quite understandable form a simplification of how these phenomenons warming Earth interact. Notice that unit there isn’t temperature, it’s power per area. When CO2 levels change it affects this power per area force (particularly to the part caused by greenhouse effect) and there is much more direct relationship between CO2 levels and this force than with temperature. In fact the NOAA web page which I’ve already couple times referred to gives simplified relationship between change in this radiating force (power per area) and atmospheres CO2 level to be ΔF = 5.35 * ln(C/Co).
Carryfast:
The deforestation issue is probably enough to explain such an increase in CO2 in any event not fossil fuel usage.Burning dead plant life is’nt going to effect photosynthesis which turns CO2 into oxygen.But removing living plant life will.Yes, like I already agreed in my previous post, removing living plant does reduce the total amount of photosynthesis happening. This also affects to the amount of CO2 which can be taken off from the atmosphere by plants unless similar amount of plants are free to grow as a replacement, right? I’d also think it’s quite self-explanatory that replacement for cut down plants isn’t going to grow when speaking about deforestation. I think this we both agree?
What then happens to the removed plants? They emit CO2 to the atmosphere. This happens either naturally (like through decay) or through some sort of acceleration (like burning the dead plants). These CO2 emissions stay in the atmosphere because there aren’t new plants which would use this CO2 for photosynthesis. Do we still agree? What I interpret from this, is that deforestation increases CO2 levels because CO2 emissions from cut down plants are greater than what currently living plants are able to use through photosynthesis.
Now, if we agreed with the above, please explain me why burning fossil fuels wouldn’t increase atmospheres CO2 levels through the same principle as deforestation increases, if burning fossil fuels would match to the CO2 emissions of deforestation? If we didn’t agree with the reason why deforestation is causing CO2 emission then I’d be keen to hear your version of it.
Carryfast:
On Earth we’ve got what seems to be a miracle going on in which plant life can turn a so called greenhouse gas (CO2) which forms only .03% of the atmosphere into one which is’nt a greenhouse gas and which forms 28% of that atmosphere … Remove 30 % of that living plant life over the last 100 years or so and you’ve got a 30% increase in C02 levels.The miracle seems to be that such a decrease in plant life does’nt translate into a 30% decrease in oxygen levels…Quote from Wikipedia article, sourced from this scientific publication explains why reduction isn’t going to happen that fast:
“At the current rate of photosynthesis it would take about 2,000 years to regenerate the entire O2 in the present atmosphere.”Carryfast:
Do you know how much CO2 each person on Earth breathes out every day?.Combine that figure with the loss in the capacity to recycle that back into oxygen and you might find the biggest reason for the (arguable) 30 % CO2 increase in the atmosphere.But the government seem to want to use all that as an excuse to increase taxation on fossil fuel use here or stop it’s use altogether which won’t make the slightest difference.I’d think amount of CO2 produced annually by mankind breathing is around 2 gigatonnes. I don’t have any reliable source for that, but I found approximately that number from two different web pages, calculated by three different way so I’d say it’s magnitude is about correct (page 1 and page 2). Like I wrote in my previous post, burning fossil fuels released 27 gigatonnes of CO2 into atmosphere at 2004 and amount of CO2 produced by human breath is clearly less than that.
Also, when humans breath out CO2, it’s carbon part obviously comes from various things one has eaten and things humans eat are basically plants or animals feeding on plants. This means all the CO2 humans exhale is originally taken from atmospheres CO2 through plants, hence creating closed loop in which total amount of CO2 doesn’t increase. Of course there is possibility that some really badass trucker feeds himself directly from diesel pumps which would break this closed loop…
Also, I’d think it’s quite clear there isn’t much of arguing if CO2 levels have increased 30% or not. It’s amount is measured from air for decades and it’s amount in the atmosphere in the past can be measured for example from glaciers. Also, amounts of CO2 measured from only few decades old parts of glacier match well to the measurements done from air at that time.
Wheel Nut:
I cant be arsed to read all these quotes plucked inanely from Wikipedia media or whatever…I’m not exactly sure what inanely means in this context (had to check meaning from dictionary
Wheel Nut:
…but have my own theories.I too have a theory, I found it from the Internet
Global warming has happened because there is less pirates sailing at the seas! Stop hunting those Somalian pirates, they’re just preventing global warmingbazza123:
Wheel Nut:
I cant be arsed to read all these quotes…Yeah some of these posts are waaaaaay too long, Kyrbo in particular needs to condense his or her posts.
Yes. No. Yes. No! Yes! You’re an [zb]. I love you too, [zb]. Mods saying: topic locked
Yeah right kyrbo because you can’t convince us with science you’re just trying to baffle us with BS.To put it simply we’re not sitting out in the garden in midwinter having a beer and a BBQ,saving a fortune on the gas which we need to burn to keep ourselves warm,because it’s so damned cold.The reason for that is that there is no large scale global temperature rise over the last hundred years which would relate to any large scale rise in any so called green house effect .Meanwhile the government don’t mind supplying as much domestic and road fossil fuel as we can afford to use so that they can make a fortune in tax.But if you’re using a plane or a train you won’t have to pay any fuel fuel tax at all.But it’s ironic to see how the climate change believers seem to have an understanding of science but they can’t understand the difference which burning long dead fossilised plant life and living plant life has on photosynthesis bearing in mind that dead fossilised trees can’t turn C02 into oxygen whereas living ones can for every day of their natural lives for hundreds of years.Therefore killing living trees by cutting them down for fuel or material causes far more increase in C02 in the long term than burning dead fossilised ones which unlike the living ones have no photosynthesis ability.It looks to me as though you’ve missed that difference.It’s also difficult to understand how there can be any ‘closed loop’ between human breathing C02 output and photosynthesis and the food which people eat in relation to the C02 which they breath out.A fat person who eats a lot but who does’nt do much excersise won’t breath out as much C02 as a person who does’nt eat much but who exerts themselves a lot.Metabolic respiratory CO2 output has more to do with muscle action than food intake.So if the climate change believers are right it’s more environmentally friendly to sit around doing nothing.Which is why I say that if cyclists are as environmentally friendly as they say they are they would be walking.
Tonight It’s bloody cold here in Nottingham, so that should help ?
i’ll take climate change seriously when all the scientists start talking about the biggest cause of CO production. the planet is vastly over populated. in every country people are getting older and diseases that would’ve killed us 20 years ago only cost £100k a year to survive. in africa millions of people are born and die from starvation shortly after while we ship food half way across the planet to try and feed them.
i know my views aren’t polically or religeously correct but we have to face it theres too many of us alive right now
The bottom line is surely this:
Some of those who believe in man made climate change want us to drastically cut Co2 emmisions by changing our way of life, everything we have developed and worked for.
That’s ok, but IF WERE WRONG
What will we have become by returning to the stone age■■?
Have a read of this Michael Crichton book State of Fear.
The authors message at the end is nearly as long as the novel.
Then make up your mind about Global warming.
They are all related to king Canute, I am not going to say who he was you will have to google it
fuse:
They are all related to king Canute, I am not going to say who he was you will have to google it
Is he the bloke with the yellow Scanias?
Ayup,did anyone see the protesters on t.v. They had a rigid lorry with an old tilt rolled up and covered in banners.Looked like a TK Bedford to me,not very Eco friendly from what I can remember.Sorry to interupt all the scientific stuff. Cheers Joe. p.s. All the best for the new year to all you **uckers.