If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
On 9 Jan, 17:38, Steve wrote:
Would the skeptics believe Al Gore if he was a TV weatherman? Steve NO! Derek C |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming/Climate Change (was contrails) Words
And if you are a scientist who relies on government grants all the
more pressure to fill in your own dots. http://tinyurl.com/yex55dm |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming/Climate Change (was contrails)
On Jan 9, 12:48*pm, delboy wrote:
On 9 Jan, 11:56, Tom Gardner wrote: On Jan 9, 9:27*am, delboy wrote: Have we actually proved that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway, Yes, of course it has been proven. If you can't accept that then there is never going to be the basis of any form of useful discussion. So why isn't the extra CO2 in the atmosphere causing the predicted increase in temperature? (1) it is, within the limits expected (2) the reasons used by the denialists: Other Counterbalancing Factors Could not any excess CO2 be removed by planting more trees (or at least not chopping down the forests we already have) anyway? Oh, come on, don't be intellectually lazy. At least think it through. (1) takes a long time to lock up carbon in a tree (2) trees are carbon-neutral - think what happens after they die It would, however be OK if the dead trees were buried so the carbon didn't resurface. Maybe in the form of a nice black solid that we're already excavating pretty fast. That's not to say that we shouldn't continue to monitor the situation and to improve the model. There we agree. OK, So how do you propose to correct things? Lets suppose we we only generate electricity from solar panels, wind power, hydro-electric dams, tidal barrages and nuclear energy, and that all vehicles are electrically powered. First of all, a lot of exotic materials such as rare earth metals and uranium would be required, which would all have to be mined (environmentally destructive) and processed (heat energy required). Then you need a lot of expensive new infrastructure, and a means of safely disposing of nuclear waste. Finally I understand that would not be enough available copper in the world to wind all the generating sets and electric motors (wars over copper instead of oil?). Could an electric airliner carry enough batteries to also carry a useful payload? If it was nuclear powered, what would happen if it crashed? Summary of that position: it is too difficult, so we shouldn't even try. Alternatively we could go back to living in caves I suppose! When did you leave? I haven't lived in a cave since November 1981. (or was it '80). |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming/Climate Change (was contrails)
On Jan 9, 5:09*pm, Scott wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote: Um, which planet earth do you live on? There have been multiple "extinction events" which take all of 5 seconds to find on wackypedia. Over billions of years, yes? *How long have we been burning fossil fuels? *200 years perhaps? You've forgotten the context in which I made my point. Hence your points are true but irrelevant. In particular, the "clathrate gun hypothesis" is particularly relevant. * ... * However there is stronger evidence that runaway methane * clathrate breakdown may have caused drastic alteration of * the ocean environment and the atmosphere of earth on a * number of occasions in the past, over timescales of tens * of thousands of years; most notably in connection with the * Permian extinction event, when 96% of all marine species * became extinct 251 million years ago. And human use of fossils fuels couldn't have caused that. *We weren't using coal to generate electricity or burning gas for our cars 251 million years ago. Correct but irrelevant to the context in which I made my point. Sounds pretty drastic to me! But it was caused by nature, not interfering humans... True. So what. |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming/Climate Change (was contrails)
On 9 Jan, 19:56, Tom Gardner wrote:
Could not any excess CO2 be removed by planting more trees (or at least not chopping down the forests we already have) anyway? Oh, come on, don't be intellectually lazy. At least think it through. (1) takes a long time to lock up carbon in a tree (2) trees are carbon-neutral - think what happens after they die Precisely. Trees are Carbon Neutral and not all the CO2 gets locked up as wood - some of it is used for making leaves which are shed and rot down. When a tree has reached full maturity, it can be chopped down and the wood used as a building material, which locks up carbon for further period of time. All the unwanted branches and offcuts can be burnt as a fuel. This is what humans always did before coal, oil and natural gas became available, and what we will probably have to go back to doing after they run out. The important thing is to plant another tree that will continue to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, which is what we have failed to do on a consistant basis for the last few hundred years. Trees and all other plants also breathe out Oxygen, which we do rather need for our own metabolic purposes. QED. Derek Copeland |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming/Climate Change (was contrails)
Tom Gardner wrote:
Sounds pretty drastic to me! But it was caused by nature, not interfering humans... True. So what. My point was simply that the Earth has means to naturally "cleanse" itself as it has done in the past without interference from humans and will likely continue to do so, with or without human help. Do we know that any particular heating or cooling is man-made versus the actions of the Earth (or sun, or moon or God)? For all we know, our supposed man-made global warming may ward off an ice age for a few extra ceturies or millenium...might be a GOOD thing...who knows? |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming/Climate Change (was contrails) Words
delboy wrote:
Suppose you measure CO2 levels in the atmosphere for a few years when global temperatures are increasing naturally. Then you draw a graph of increasing CO2 concentrations against Global Temperature and find that you have a correlation. Derek Copeland Exactly...is increasing CO2 warming the planet or is a warming planet increasing the levels of CO2? Which is causing which? As a homebrewer who deals with carbonation, a warmer liquid can not hold as much gas in suspension as a cold liquid. Maybe any dissolved CO2 in water is being expelled as the Earth warms and the water's temperature increases... |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming/Climate Change (was contrails)
On Jan 9, 11:24*pm, Scott wrote:
My point was simply that the Earth has means to naturally "cleanse" itself What on earth does that mean, exactly. Sounds like you are some for of a new-age Gaia devotee. as it has done in the past without interference from humans and will likely continue to do so, with or without human help. * Perhaps you would like earth to "clense itself" of all this nasty oxygen, and go back to the earth's original pristine reducing atmosphere. Do we know that any particular heating or cooling is man-made versus the actions of the Earth (or sun, or moon or God)? *For all we know, our supposed man-made global warming may ward off an ice age for a few extra ceturies or millenium...might be a GOOD thing...who knows? Summary: Can't prove what'll happen in the future. So the best thing is to Carry On Regardless. Not an impressive intellectual position. |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming/Climate Change (was contrails)
Tom Gardner wrote:
Summary: Can't prove what'll happen in the future. So the best thing is to Carry On Regardless. Not an impressive intellectual position. Not meant to be. Point is, can you (or anyone) prove that what we might be doing IS harmful? Didn't think so. You don't know, I don't know. All I know is someone seems to be making a lot of money off this issue. Carbon credits, for example...who will get the money? Do you want electricity? How will it get generated? I'm not saying we should do nothing. I just know human nature...once we have something (luxuries, etc. like easy travel, electricity) nobody wants to give it up. So, give me a list of what you will do to reduce your carbon contributions...maybe it will give me some ideas. |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming/Climate Change (was contrails)
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 23:24:39 +0000, Scott wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote: Sounds pretty drastic to me! But it was caused by nature, not interfering humans... True. So what. My point was simply that the Earth has means to naturally "cleanse" itself as it has done in the past without interference from humans and will likely continue to do so, with or without human help. Quite possibly, but have you considered that temperature swings, sea level changes and ocean acidification may wipe out civilisation as we know it (along with an unknown number of additional species) before a new steady state is reached? -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
contrails | No Name | Aviation Photos | 3 | June 22nd 07 01:47 PM |
Contrails | Darkwing | Piloting | 21 | March 23rd 07 05:58 PM |
Contrails | Kevin Dunlevy | Piloting | 4 | December 13th 06 08:31 PM |
Contrails | Steven P. McNicoll | Piloting | 17 | December 10th 03 10:23 PM |