Author Topic: Ice bubbles reveal biggest rise in CO2 for 800,000 years (Read 4813 times)

lukster · « **Reply #90 on:** September 07, 2006, 11:10:34 AM »

I'm referring to this:

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/envdev838.doc.htm

"GENEVA, 11 April (UNEP/WMO) -- After 20 years of protecting the ozone layer with a new generation of chemicals, governments are confronting the fact that these ozone-friendly substitutes for chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) also happen to be greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming."

mora · « **Reply #91 on:** September 07, 2006, 11:37:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Elfie
Point I was trying to make (obviously failed lol) with my original post on this subject was......a single airliner in ONE flight (regardless of numbers of passengers) puts out more hydrocarbon emissions than a single car does in years. There are hundreds, if not thousands of airliner flights per day.

With car pooling (should be alot more of that going on) airliners are much worse than cars emissions wise.

And there are billions of automobile trips each day. Again it doesn't matter how enviromentally "friendly" passenger cars with more than one person are, because on average they just carry a little more than one passenger. Also you are overestimating the fuel efficiency of an average passenger car.

IgnorantJoe · « **Reply #92 on:** September 07, 2006, 12:27:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Suave
...proselytizing...

Stupid is an adverb, extinction has allways been stupidity's reward.

Isn't stupid an adjective and stupidly an adverb?

Are you asking me to trust the rationalizations of someone who doesn't know the difference?

Angus · « **Reply #93 on:** September 07, 2006, 12:56:34 PM »

Is this a thread where the exact use of the word "stupid" is discussed?
I thought it was a CO2 - Global warming thread with interesting inputs.
Well what to expect, where the debate has entered a quarrel wheteher it's the fault of aircraft or cars.
Maybe time to go google to bring up some stats?

Elfie · « **Reply #94 on:** September 07, 2006, 01:44:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mora
And there are billions of automobile trips each day. Again it doesn't matter how enviromentally "friendly" passenger cars with more than one person are, because on average they just carry a little more than one passenger. Also you are overestimating the fuel efficiency of an average passenger car.

While I would agree that there are many more automobile trips each day, not one of those trips burns thousands of gallons of fuel on a single trip like an airliner does. I dont think these 2 types of transportation are really comparable just due to the difference in the sheer amount of fuel used.

I did try to find out how many airliner trips there are each day without much luck.

lazs2 · « **Reply #95 on:** September 07, 2006, 02:47:12 PM »

no angus... the thread is about how much man is affecting the normal global warming cycle we are in and how much us not even existing would change things.

none of you hand wringers can tell us.

I say that everything affects everything.... so what? I am saying that you had better show some good provable results for any hardship that you want to impose on me.... not just that is seems like a good idea.

as for the aircraft.... now it seems that since it is a smaller portion than the cars that if should be exempt and all you hand wringers can go merrily on your way with your pleasure jaunts.

We can do "something" about man made co2 by simply banning all but emergency air travel.

How much will that help? Who cares right? it only matters that it will help right?

lazs

Angus · « **Reply #96 on:** September 07, 2006, 03:12:11 PM »

"no angus... the thread is about how much man is affecting the normal global warming cycle we are in and how much us not even existing would change things."

Exactly.
We agree on what it's about.
But we disagree about the size of problems, and the fight.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #97 on:** September 08, 2006, 06:42:09 AM »

Gee........you mean to tell me the earth and the climate are going through changes? Well......now that hasn`t happened but a few thousand times. Cooling/warming....warming/cooling............................
What a news flash.

Angus · « **Reply #98 on:** September 08, 2006, 06:51:40 AM »

Hello my dear friend and yes, welcome to the changes.
They're worth a study, since the evidence of our part in it seems to be popping up constantly.
So, while looking into matters I just stumbled across some interesting data.
(Various sources).
It has to do with the impact of mankind, as well as world's used energy and various shares of it.
You'll like it.
Will be back later

lazs2 · « **Reply #99 on:** September 08, 2006, 09:00:31 AM »

no angus... we dissagree on if it is a natural cycle or not and on what to do about whatever portion is man made.

No one here has been able.... nor any scientist been able... to tell how much of the natural warming cycle is man made or, more importantly....what and if we can do about it.

most of you hand wringers just say " we must have some effect... who cares how much? sooo we need to change our lifestyles and put on hairshirts and live in caves till it all goes away."

I'm not buying it... not if you can't tell me how much we are hurting or how much we can help.

lazs

Angus · « **Reply #100 on:** September 08, 2006, 09:45:47 AM »

So, here's my point.
It's happening and we have a slice of it.

First step of global warming debates was: It's happening.
Denialists said, noo...it aint.
Now, even you are a step further.
Step 2, yeah it's happening, but it's only natural.
Step 2b is "No one here has been able.... nor any scientist been able... to tell how much of the natural warming cycle is man made or, more importantly....what and if we can do about it."
Step 3 is where many of the scientists are now, - Dang, it's happening and it is very much of our fault.

And this from you is a strawman:

"sooo we need to change our lifestyles and put on hairshirts and live in caves till it all goes away."

Who said that? You did.
Why? Because that is about as far as you are ready to go with the thought.
I'll give you a thought of mine.
We will need to change our lifestile, as we did when the declination of the ozone layer was being countered. That didn't really put you on a hairshirt did it? However, this one is a much bigger issue. But down to hairshirt....no.
There is a long way between some change of lifestyle down to the hairshirt you see.

lukster · « **Reply #101 on:** September 08, 2006, 10:15:51 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
So, here's my point.
It's happening and we have a slice of it.

First step of global warming debates was: It's happening.
Denialists said, noo...it aint.
Now, even you are a step further.
Step 2, yeah it's happening, but it's only natural.
Step 2b is "No one here has been able.... nor any scientist been able... to tell how much of the natural warming cycle is man made or, more importantly....what and if we can do about it."
Step 3 is where many of the scientists are now, - Dang, it's happening and it is very much of our fault.

And this from you is a strawman:

"sooo we need to change our lifestyles and put on hairshirts and live in caves till it all goes away."

Who said that? You did.
Why? Because that is about as far as you are ready to go with the thought.
I'll give you a thought of mine.
We will need to change our lifestile, as we did when the declination of the ozone layer was being countered. That didn't really put you on a hairshirt did it? However, this one is a much bigger issue. But down to hairshirt....no.
There is a long way between some change of lifestyle down to the hairshirt you see.

We've already been greatly inconvenienced in plugging up the hole in the ozone layer. Replacement of chlorofluorocarbons was no small nor inexpensive undertaking. Now we find that the replacements may be causing an even greater problem? Color me skeptical of this whole "we must do something now" movement.

Angus · « **Reply #102 on:** September 08, 2006, 10:41:33 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
We've already been greatly inconvenienced in plugging up the hole in the ozone layer. Replacement of chlorofluorocarbons was no small nor inexpensive undertaking. Now we find that the replacements may be causing an even greater problem? Color me skeptical of this whole "we must do something now" movement.

Be sceptical as you like. It is yet but a pinsalamander part of our combined emissions.
And did you consider the "inconveniences" with the ozone layer in a goodbye mode?

lazs2 · « **Reply #103 on:** September 08, 2006, 02:32:02 PM »

Ok angus... I can see we are getting nowhere in the "how much is man made" debate since you are unwilling to answer this just as your scientists heros can't/won't/don't have a clue/ do.

So... since you won't or can't answer that one... let's take a different tact...

we don't know if it will do any real good in the natural ebb and flow of global climate but.... we can do "something"

exactly what is it that you think we should do? What would make you feel good about the whole situation?

What are the sacrafices you would want us to all make?

lazs

Hajo · « **Reply #104 on:** September 08, 2006, 02:49:12 PM »

Wow! They had Chili back then too?!!!!!!