Governments reject GW as a reality

[Lost User]

It really is incredible what people will make up in their minds about people who they disagree with. Well, I guess ad hominem attacks are par for the course with people like you.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

[Lost User]

Josh Gray wrote:

You just tried to change tact again

Thats 'track' or 'tack'. Changing 'tact' is either becoming more tactless or less tactless. Which I am sure you didnt mean. As for Australian politics, yes, I know nothing, and I am sure you lept upon that one thing to criticise me with as it is somethign you understand better than I. Clearly you have issues if you like attacking people with foul language for making statements which are possibly untrue. Perhaps you shouldnt smoke gear. In my experience if you are as warped as you seem to be smoking weed will probably result in mental damage.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

[Lost User]

fat_boy wrote:

Thats 'track' or 'tack'. Changing 'tact' is either becoming more tactless or less tactless. Which I am sure you didnt mean. As for Australian politics, yes, I know nothing, and I am sure you lept upon that one thing to criticise me with as it is somethign you understand better than I. Clearly you have issues if you like attacking people with foul language for making statements which are possibly untrue. Perhaps you shouldnt smoke gear. In my experience if you are as warped as you seem to be smoking weed will probably result in mental damage.

You're right about the word tack, thanks. As for the rest you obviously have the shits at being shown up for talking crap as you usually do. Be a man, admit you were wrong and move on.

fat_boy wrote:

Clearly you have issues if you like attacking people with foul language for making statements which are possibly untrue.

You have issues if you attempt back up points with facts you clearly know nothing about and then turn nasty when you're shown to be wrong.

fat_boy wrote:

In my experience if you are as warped as you seem to be smoking weed will probably result in mental damage.

I'm warped from your point of view? well thank fuck for that. I'd call your rabid fascination with global warming a pretty good sign of mental issues.

[Lost User]

In actual fact CO2 is necessary for humans. Without it our breath response isnt triggered. If its less than about 250 ppm crops start to fail, trees start to die. Thats bad for man. If its above 5000 some people may experience discomfort, thats why its the maximum level recomended for crop production, I sent you the link to the Canadian govt dept of agr paper on this. So anywhere between say 300 and 5000 is comfortable for man. And we are looking at an increase to 500 or 600 ppm. So its not a problem to man at a biological/chemical level.

Ian Shlasko wrote:

Have you?

Yes. As I believe I told you before I checked the data on the Daly website with that held by the Met office and found it agreed.

Ian Shlasko wrote:

Did I say that?

Its hard to know what you mean because you are inconsistent fomr one post to another and dont argue point through. Perhaps you do it for ammusement, I dont know. But, Hansen is ain important figure. I criticised him, and you say "you're attacking one particular scientist, as if he represents the entire scientific community". This lead me to believe that you think, since I am not attacking the entire scientific community , than the entire community is behind AGW. If not can you explain what you meant? Here is an interesting link to a documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUuff3cnPBo[^] It has just scientists, not politics, or rhetoric, discussing the scientific pronciples behind GW and why in their opinion any warmig caused by CO2 is negligible. If you really are as open minded as you say you are you wil take the time to watch it.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

[Lost User]

I dont know if you read the article I linked to, but I based my statement about Australian politics on that. I have no reason to believe you are more correct than the writer of that article so I wont be appologising anytime soon. Just because you lilved there, in fact so did I but lets not get into the 'I lived there longer than you so I know more about it than you do' crap, lets leave that for the ignorant, does not mean you are necessarially right. As for mental issues, I am pretty sure I have a reasonable compliment, who hasnt. At least I KNOW what mine are and recognise them. Do you?

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

[Lost User]

blah blah fucking blah. Here's a really really simple question for you... was Rudd ditched for someone with a different view on GW? Yes, no or fuck off? You choose

[Lost User]

Still in an asshole mood I see. I guess the joint didnt help you any.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

[Lost User]

fat_boy wrote:

Still in an a**hole mood I see.

Still cant answer the question I see. What would have been surprising is if you admitted your mistake. I dont imagine that's ever happened though.

fat_boy wrote:

I guess the joint didnt help you any.

Didn't get round to it in the end. Tonight perhaps. You're not far away, wanna come over?

[Ian Shlasko]

fat_boy wrote:

So anywhere between say 300 and 5000 is comfortable for man. And we are looking at an increase to 500 or 600 ppm. So its not a problem to man at a biological/chemical level.

And how do you know it will stay within that range?

fat_boy wrote:

Its hard to know what you mean because you are inconsistent fomr one post to another and dont argue point through. Perhaps you do it for ammusement, I dont know. But, Hansen is ain important figure. I criticised him, and you say "you're attacking one particular scientist, as if he represents the entire scientific community". This lead me to believe that you think, since I am not attacking the entire scientific community , than the entire community is behind AGW. If not can you explain what you meant?

Ah, I see your confusion... I was restating my previous point, several posts ago, when I said, "You think one research group encompasses the entire scientific world, or at least the portion of it on that side of the debate". Should I just copy-paste next time?

fat_boy wrote:

Here is an interesting link to a documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUuff3cnPBo\[^\] It has just scientists, not politics, or rhetoric, discussing the scientific pronciples behind GW and why in their opinion any warmig caused by CO2 is negligible. If you really are as open minded as you say you are you wil take the time to watch it.

For every link you find that opposes GW, I could find one that supports it, and vice versa. There are plenty on either side.

Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)

[Lost User]

Josh Gray wrote:

wanna come over?

Well, taking this at face value, no thanks, I dont smoke anymore. And Amsterdam is a long way from Luxemberg, although the sight of you crapping yourself as my 6'4" 240 lb mass of muscle and lesh walks in the door could be ammusing. (That last part was taking your invite at non face value). :)

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

[Lost User]

Ian Shlasko wrote:

And how do you know it will stay within that range?

If we are reachiung peak oil production, and so far we have added 100 ppm, then it is quesitonable that we will even reach 600. More likely 550 ppm is the most (given that the bell curve for oil production is symetrical). We owuld probably have to burn every piece of coal and litre of oil in the ground to get CO2 up to the thousands. After all, this is where it was before the carboniferous period.

Ian Shlasko wrote:

For every link you find that opposes GW, I could find one that supports it, and vice versa

Yes, and you have stated you are open minded and undecided so I expect you will want to watch that video. Unless you are not so openminded as you profess.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

[Lost User]

fat_boy wrote:

Well, taking this at face value, no thanks, I dont smoke anymore. And Amsterdam is a long way from Luxemberg, although the sight of you crapping yourself as my 6'4" 240 lb mass of muscle and lesh walks in the door could be ammusing. (That last part was taking your invite at non face value). Smile

I'm not a violent man, I'd not even considered that it could be taken that way. Perhaps you're used to people reacting to you in that manner. I've driven Amsterdam to Luxembourg in an afternoon. Waste of an afternoon though, what a fucking shit hole. Still, at least I can spell it.

[Lost User]

Josh Gray wrote:

Perhaps you're used to people reacting to you in that manner.

Not when they see me they dont. :) If you didnt like *Luxembourg* I guess you missed thr Grund and Claussen, they are pretty with good bars.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

[Lost User]

Has this degenerated to you playing the tough guy online? That's really fucking pathetic mate, even for you. You still haven't answered my question.

[Lost User]

I guess you missed the smiley too. What question was that, whether I want to come by for a smoke?

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

[Ian Shlasko]

fat_boy wrote:

Yes, and you have stated you are open minded and undecided so I expect you will want to watch that video. Unless you are not so openminded as you profess.

Being open-minded doesn't mean having to watch every single video available. I actually don't like watching youtube videos on either side, as the 1% that aren't crap still tend to be a waste of time. At least when it's text, I can skip over the mindless rambling and get to the actual information. With a video, I have to sit through all of the long pauses and desperate cracks at humor, or risk missing something important if I skip ahead.

fat_boy wrote:

If we are reachiung peak oil production, and so far we have added 100 ppm, then it is quesitonable that we will even reach 600. More likely 550 ppm is the most (given that the bell curve for oil production is symetrical). We would probably have to burn every piece of coal and litre of oil in the ground to get CO2 up to the thousands. After all, this is where it was before the carboniferous period.

Seems like a logical argument at face value, but it depends on that being the only source of CO2, and on there being a constant absorption rate. Some studies, which we've discussed already, theorize that the oceans (The largest CO2 sink) may be near the point where they'll stop absorbing it. If that happens, the amount staying in the atmosphere could increase much more quickly. Also, continued deforestation (Which the greens are trying to reduce) will slightly reduce the absorption capability of the biosphere. Now what if the temperature goes up or down a degree? How is that going to affect absorption and emission rates? See, I'm not saying we're definitely going to reach 600 or 1000 or 5000... I don't know what's going to happen. The point I'm trying to make here is that you're oversimplifying a very complex problem. There are a LOT of factors to take into account, and looking at a historical curve or estimating peak oil isn't going to give you an answer alone.

Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)

[Lost User]

Ian Shlasko wrote:

Being open-minded doesn't mean having to watch every single video available

I am asking you to watch ONE video.

Ian Shlasko wrote:

1% that aren't crap still tend to be a waste of time

This is actually quite good. Its just scientists talking about their work.

Ian Shlasko wrote:

and on there being a constant absorption rate.

Its a big unknown. Plants will grow more quickly, they already are, how much of the extra CO2 they can take is quesitonable as there is probably a maximum growing speed regardless of conditions, and this will deffinitely vary species to species. But since 600 ppm is still a long way off what it has been in the past, and what is safe for humans (if 5000 ppm is the recomended max for workers then lets say 3000 ppm is the max including old people, asthamatics and so on. Of course its a guess, but why the hell not, it seems fair). As for the oceans they outgas CO2 in response to temperatures. SO that could go either way, depending of course on what realy IS driving temperatures, the sun, cosmic rays, oceanic currents. Or a combination. All in all though, since we are not far above starvation level, 200 ppm, and the planet has had CO2 at far higher levels, 7,000 ppm, increasing CO2 is less risky than decreasing it.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

[Ian Shlasko]

fat_boy wrote:

Its a big unknown. Plants will grow more quickly, they already are, how much of the extra CO2 they can take is quesitonable as there is probably a maximum growing speed regardless of conditions, and this will deffinitely vary species to species. But since 600 ppm is still a long way off what it has been in the past, and what is safe for humans (if 5000 ppm is the recomended max for workers then lets say 3000 ppm is the max including old people, asthamatics and so on. Of course its a guess, but why the hell not, it seems fair). As for the oceans they outgas CO2 in response to temperatures. SO that could go either way, depending of course on what realy IS driving temperatures, the sun, cosmic rays, oceanic currents. Or a combination.

I remember looking up exposure levels before, but I don't think those took into account sustained levels. While 3000ppm (Or whatever number) may be safe for temporary exposure, how would it affect us if we lived 24/7 in it? How would it affect human reproduction, specifically infants and fetuses? Think of all of the different things women are supposed to avoid while pregnant. Being able to survive in 3000ppm doesn't help much if our species is less able or unable to reproduce in that environment. Again, it's more complicated than it seems. Now I know you keep throwing out that 7000ppm historical number (And similar), and yes, I agree that such a high level would not harm the planet. The issue, however, is not about harming the planet, but harming the human race. Sure, the planet will eventually adapt to any change, but that doesn't mean it'll stay habitable to us. Let's go hypothetical for a second here... Say the ocean becomes saturated in the next decade or so, and stops absorbing CO2 (Or worse, starts to release it - There's a HUGE amount of CO2 stored in the oceans, more than in the atmosphere). According to this[^], about a third of our emissions are going into the oceans. If a similar amount is being absorbed by the biosphere, then the elimination of the oceans as a carbon sink would double our effect on the atmosphere. In the meantime, the oceans are already becoming slightly more acidic[

[Lost User]

Ian Shlasko wrote:

While 3000ppm (Or whatever number) may be safe for temporary exposure, how would it affect us if we lived 24/7 in it? How would it affect human reproduction, specifically infants and fetuses? Think of all of the different things women are supposed to avoid while pregnant. Being able to survive in 3000ppm doesn't help much if our species is less able or unable to reproduce in that environment. Again, it's more complicated than it seems.

Dont forget that in a home, pub, bedroom, meeting room, office etc, ie any enclosed space inhabited by humans, the CO2 levels will be far above the 380ppm measured at the top of a mountain in Hawaii. Let me quote from a Canadian state publlicaiton: http://dhs.wisconsin.gov/eh/ChemFS/fs/CarbonDioxide.htm[^] •250 - 350 ppm – background (normal) outdoor air level •350- 1,000 ppm - typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange. •1,000 – 2,000 ppm - level associated with complaints of drowsiness and poor air. •2,000 – 5,000 ppm – level associated with headaches, sleepiness, and stagnant, stale, stuffy air. Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present. •>5,000 ppm – Exposure may lead to serious oxygen deprivation resulting in permanent brain damage, coma and even death. So by experience a typical meeting room is running in the 2,000 to 5,000 range judging by how sleepy I get! :) Anyway, like I said previously, if we are at peak oil, we are only going to add another 150-200 ppm. What you say about the unknowns of CO2 absorbtion by the oceans vs plants and the effect this balance has on the CO2 levels in the air. Quite clearly this is an interesting study. However, if the oceans did completely stop absorbing CO2 and added another 30% to the atmosphere then we would end up adding 200 to 250 ppm before the oil ran out. And that is still only a total of 600 to 700 ppm. Still well within what we are normally exposed to. Aparently it climbs to about 500 ppm at night time, descending in the day to around 200 ppm on average, but also reaches 500 to 600 ppm on a windless day. Check out this study. There are quite a few like this. http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klima

[Ian Shlasko]

fat_boy wrote:

Dont forget that in a home, pub, bedroom, meeting room, office etc, ie any enclosed space inhabited by humans, the CO2 levels will be far above the 380ppm measured at the top of a mountain in Hawaii.

Well put... And if that mountaintop is now 1000ppm because of our contributions to the atmosphere, what's it going to be like in that conference room?

fat_boy wrote:

Anyway, like I said previously, if we are at peak oil, we are only going to add another 150-200 pp

Like I said, it's not that simple. The absorption rate isn't a constant, and our CO2 contribution isn't JUST based on oil. Actually, this chart[^] shows that coal releases much more CO2 than most forms of oil. So you really can't depend on peak oil to limit our overall emissions.

Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)