Kevin Wood Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 QUOTE All i know is that we're only on this planet for a short time and we should enjoy our time here while we can Its inevitable we are all going to DIE Damn right. Now, where are the keys to the Westie...? Time to emit some CO2 while the sun's out... Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Keene Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 given that human CO2 is only a small percentage of the total CO2 That is not a given. 390 ppm now as opposed to 250 normally is a 50% increase, not a small percentage! Indeed it is a large increase. BUT, in global terms that 140ppm increase in human CO2 output is f##k all... I'd have a bigger impact p******** in the atlantic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilb Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 QUOTE QUOTE If you want to buy the story that this tiny amount of gas in the atmosphere is the beginning and end of climate change then that’s up to you. As I have said before, This is a small part in the big chain which can have large repercussuions! But show me that this is true in any other system, it's like saying if the tyre pressure is out by 0.0001 psi the engine will blow-up or that a 40 stone american will die unless he cuts down salt and forgetting the fact that he is 3 times normal weight, eats too much, drinks too much, takes no exercise and smokes 80 a day, yes the salt may have an impact but will it really be the cause of his death? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spence Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 just like the statistitians I bet you used spell check for that. Oi SADDLEWORTH you need a good slapping having started this thread. It's doing my head in. ARHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH it's on the news AGAIN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pistonbroke Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I see from the news the connies are jumping on the bandwagon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromit Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 That is not a given. 390 ppm now as opposed to 250 normally is a 50% increase, not a small percentage! 250ppm equals 0.025% wereas 390ppm is equal to .030% so when you say its a 50% increase, its not really is it, its 0.005%, which to my mind is diddley squatt. How can such a miniscule change trip off what are claimed to be, significant changes in the weather. If the balance was that delicate we had all better stop eating beans and farting then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilb Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Clouds are cooling but watervapur has a warming effect. A warmer surface would create more evaporation and thus more clouds and vapour. This matter is highly complex and I don't have the knowledge to comment on it further as this is also amonst climatologist a matter of debate.CO2 adds to the surface temperature and although as you say it is a small portion of the greenhouse effect you also might have heard about a straw and the back of a camel. upsetting the (oscillating) balance is something we should avoid. http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1998/es202/l13.html With water vapor being a strong green house gas causing upto 95% of the green house effect that is a much bigger deal than CO2 - good job we stopped using steam power.....no wait a minute don't all them power stations use steam tubines to make electricity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeyboy Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I now know where all the money goes on these expensive research projects..... it goes on coloured pencils and crayons so the men in white coats can produce endless graphs and pie charts Can this thread be locked now as I'm getting fed up with it, plus geelhoed can spend more time looking for a girlfriend rather than with his head in a physics text book. Let's face it if we were all that concerned about global warming we wouldn't be drivng performance vehicles or owning 2 or 3 cars per household Lets start a new thread, maybe about the refurbing of the trident war heads..... I think it's a good idea to upgrade our stock as the world seems to be filling up with mad people and nut jacks with their fingers on the button of their own a nukes. We still need a deterent! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geelhoed Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Indeed it is a large increase. BUT, in global terms that 140ppm increase in human CO2 output is f##k all... Not really. Sure if you look at this graph you's say so but remember that 150 million years ago the earth looked quite a bit different. I mean Pangea was still around! Oil didn't even exist yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geelhoed Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 But show me that this is true in any other system, Take a pipe flow which is nice and laminar at Reynolds 5000 if you tap on the pipe or a truck drives by it will switch to a turbulent state and never ever return to laminar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geelhoed Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 250ppm equals 0.025% wereas 390ppm is equal to .030% so when you say its a 50% increase, its not really is it, its 0.005%, which to my mind is diddley squatt. You guys are just yanking my chain here right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geelhoed Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Can this thread be locked now as I'm getting fed up with it, plus geelhoed can spend more time looking for a girlfriend rather than with his head in a physics text book. No need to get personal plus I doubt whether my wife would let me have a girlfriend or not..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilb Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 But show me that this is true in any other system, Take a pipe flow which is nice and laminar at Reynolds 5000 if you tap on the pipe or a truck drives by it will switch to a turbulent state and never ever return to laminar. So flow of fluid in a pipe is a complex system and driving a truck past it equals a 0.005% change Must try harded on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter pan Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 The real answer is simple - More humans = more use of Earth resouces,+ more pollution from human sources. Less humans = less pollution from human sources. 10 humans making 10% emissions each = 100% emissions. 400 humans making 2% emissions each = 800% emissions. So no matter how low we manage to cut emissions per capita, if we keep on increasing the number of humans on the planet as we are NOW doing, the end game will be the same.....Soylent Green anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Keene Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 250ppm equals 0.025% wereas 390ppm is equal to .030% so when you say its a 50% increase, its not really is it, its 0.005%, which to my mind is diddley squatt. You guys are just yanking my chain here right? No. Your saying 250ppm to 390ppm is nearly a 50% rise in HUMAN CO2 output, which is correct. What Gromit is pointing out, is the TOTAL rise in CO2 output is 0.005%. I refer you again to p******** in the Atlantic. I also refer you again to somebodies previous comment, if you are so sure humans are to blame and the CO2 output we create is the cause, then why do you drive a Westfield... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.