Governments reject GW as a reality
-
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.
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
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) -
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)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 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
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[
-
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[
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 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
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) -
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)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Like I said, it's not that simple
And I answered that by adding your 30% to give 200-250ppm, which still only gets us to around 700ppm tops. Answer that if you can! :) And yes, there seems ot be a lot more coal in reserve than oil. Here's something I found recently, worth a read: http://www.probeinternational.org/Qing-Bin%20Lu%20on%20CFCs%20and%20Global%20Cooling.pdf[^] And here is a french scientist who agrees with me: http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/4550/Climate-The-Great-Delusion[^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Like I said, it's not that simple
And I answered that by adding your 30% to give 200-250ppm, which still only gets us to around 700ppm tops. Answer that if you can! :) And yes, there seems ot be a lot more coal in reserve than oil. Here's something I found recently, worth a read: http://www.probeinternational.org/Qing-Bin%20Lu%20on%20CFCs%20and%20Global%20Cooling.pdf[^] And here is a french scientist who agrees with me: http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/4550/Climate-The-Great-Delusion[^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
And I answered that by adding your 30% to give 200-250ppm, which still only gets us to around 700ppm tops.
As I keep saying, that's still a simplification. I just mentioned and estimated one more factor, and by the way, you miscalculated that completely. Unless I typed it up wrong before (Semi-busy morning, so only have a few minutes to post at the moment)... Something like 1/3rd of our output is absorbed by the oceans, and 1/3rd by the biosphere. If the oceans stop absorbing, then we're not increasing our output by 30%... We're doubling it. We're going from 1/3rd in the atmosphere to 2/3 in the atmosphere. But again, feedback cycles and other factors will complicate it much more, and I don't know enough to guess at the actual numbers those will involve. Remind me to check out those links later, when I have some more time. EDIT: Ok, have a little more time now to check out those links... I'm not going to go through and try to process everything in that PDF, but the abstract is interesting. If it turns out to be correct, well, that would be a good thing. As for the second... The guy's basically saying that we can't do anything about CO2 emissions, so we might as well just ignore them. Obviously the brief article is just a summary, but that seems a pretty simplistic argument. True, we can't cut our emissions down to zero. No one in their right mind would believe that to be a possibility, at least in the foreseeable future. But IF it's proven that our CO2 emissions are harmful, then even cutting them by 25% would give us 33% more time to figure out a better solution. We could even tackle the problem from the other side, using CO2 scrubbers to REMOVE some of it from the atmosphere, if that proves to be necessary.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)modified on Thursday, July 8, 2010 9:40 AM