Also Gary the short term effect of high CO 2 humans can handle it's the long term over decages where the problem occurs you are wright about Apollo 13 but they only had to put up with it for a few days not years or decades mate

---

Also Gary the short term effect of high CO 2 humans can handle

2 humans aren't very good at handling CO, tends to make you feel very sleepy.

CO2 however, we can cope with up to about 1%, as anyone who's ever been into an industrial greenhouse will testify.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Simon you naughty boy . I have to put a space or this silly spell checker says its wrong if i put CO2 so i've been putting CO 2

---

Simon you naughty boy . I have to put a space or this silly spell checker says its wrong if i put CO2 so i've been putting CO 2

Actually, it's really Co2 (Carbon and Oxygen). But have seen it spelled, in Science Journals, many ways.

Doesn't matter. We know what it is.

Co2 would be dicobalt. CO2 is the most correct option, ideally the 2 should be subscript but this forum code won't allow that.
CO2 kinda works.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

It occurred to me that we should also tax the oxygen in the CO-2 as well. In fact, I want to become the AL Gore of Oxygen pollution and Oxygen Footprints.

I am going to Wall Street to start an IPO for selling Oxygen Offsets.

I am looking for green and socially conscious investors. Also looking for investors to fund a KY jelly distributorship in the Virgin Islands and the Amana Freezer franchise in the Eskimo community in Alaska.

I am looking for green and socially conscious investors. Also looking for investors to fund a KY jelly distributorship in the Virgin Islands and the Amana Freezer franchise in the Eskimo community in Alaska.

Not sure i understand that part.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Simon you naughty boy . I have to put a space or this silly spell checker says its wrong if i put CO2 so i've been putting CO 2

Actually, it's really Co2 (Carbon and Oxygen). But have seen it spelled, in Science Journals, many ways.

Doesn't matter. We know what it is.

Co2 would be dicobalt. CO2 is the most correct option, ideally the 2 should be subscript but this forum code won't allow that.
CO2 kinda works.

You're correct. I was confusing two different elements.

Since we can't do the correct subscript: I guess, any 'case' of C - O - 2 will suffice.

Oh, its do-able. But a bit of a p.i.t.a.

COâ‚‚

Use unicode characters by cut & paste. For your use a chart of a few of them I have found, There are other ways of doing it, but imo this is the easiest.

⁰ ¹ ² ³ ⁴ ⁵ ⁶ ⁷ ⁸ ⁹ ⁺ ⁻ ⁽ ⁾ ⁿ ˣ º √ ∫ ב א
₀ ₁ ₂ ₃ ₄ ₅ ₆ ₇ ₈ ₉ ₊ ₋ ₍ ₎ ᵢ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ 𝔽 ∃ ∄ ∀
Αα Ββ Γγ Δδ Εε Ζζ Ηη Θθ Ιι Κκ Λλ Μμ Νν
Ξξ Οο Ππ Ρρ Σσς Ττ Υυ Φφ Χχ Ψψ Ωω
■ ⇒ ⇔ ∞ ± ∓ ∈ ∉ ⊆ ⊈ ∋ ∌ ⊇ ⊉ ∩ Ø ∧ ∨ ↑ ↓ ∇ • × ̅

<grin>

The natural variability in climate has been (over the last 2000 years, at least, about 4C.

What is wrong with this statement ?

The natural cycle is 50,000 yrs or so from 1 ice age to another and from a low CO 2 to a High CO 2 and the CO 2 has never gone above 350 ppm in the last 800,000 yrs

However he includes the last 200 yrs in his paper .

It took how long for the CO2 to go up from a low of 180 ppm to 240 ppm a lot more than 2000 .

He has no comparrison to make his claims has he if the CO 2 hasn't been this high in 800,000 yrs .

And if it took 2000 yrs for the Co2 to go up only 80 why does he include the last 200 yrs where the CO2 has gone up 160 ppm when the natural cycle takes something like 50,000 yrs

google the Keeling curve or better still click the link

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/?PageSpeed=noscript

18 more months and the CO 2 will not go below 400 as it has already gone above this only 6 months ago

Glenn,

There a LOT of other factors involved in climate than just COâ‚‚ concentration in the air.

In the climate cycles being discussed, they have other causes such as cyclic changes in solar output and cyclic changes in Earth's orbit.

The changes in COâ‚‚ that have in the past accompanied these cyclic changes are an effect, not a cause of the cycles.

Furthermore, I fail to understand your objection to Dr. Koonin's statement that the climate's sensitivity to a doubling of COâ‚‚ concentration is roughly equivalent to the natural variability in climate.

This is a POWERFUL statement in support of GHG-AGW.

Hmm...

I'll be dipped.

Perhaps you WERE right to doubt the statement.

While searching for the data that showed the Medieval Climate Optimum of about 1000 years ago was about 2ºC warmer than the last 2000 year average temperature, and the Little Ice Age of 500 or so years ago was about 2ºC cooler, I happened on a new bit of research that casts doubt on our ability to seperate GHG-AGW effects from natural variability over this time period.

The paper:
http://anr.sagepub.com/content/1/2/147


The full text of the paper:
http://anr.sagepub.com/content/1/2/147.full.pdf+html

Title and Abstract:

Does pre-industrial warming double the anthropogenic total?

Abstract:

According to the early anthropogenic hypothesis, land clearing and agriculture caused emissions of greenhouse gases to begin to alter climate as early as 7000 years ago (Ruddiman, 2003). Climate-model simulations based on the CO2 and CH4 concentrations proposed in the hypothesis suggest that humans caused a global mean warming of 0.9 to 1.5°C before the start of the industrial era. Additional pre-industrial effects on land surface reflectance (changes in albedo resulting from forest clearance) may have cooled climate enough to cancel 0.2 to 0.3°C of this warming effect, leaving a net early anthropogenic warming contribution of between 0.7°C and 1.2°C. This proposed early anthropogenic warming is comparable with, and likely larger than, the measured 0.85°C warming during the last 150 years. If the simulations based on the early anthropogenic hypothesis are correct, total anthropogenic warming has been twice or more the industrial amount registered to date.

It just became a lot more likely that we will have to curtail agriculture in addition to eliminating fossil fuel use and curtailing industrial activity.

Kong your a lot younger than me so you will have to put up with what ever happens as i'll be dead before it gets really bad . I'm not so worried about temps as we don't really know which way it will go i'm more worried at the rate we are pumping the stuff into the air . At 400 ppm and going up at aprox 2.4- 2.8 ppm 100 years will add 280 to what we already have and according to what i've herd and seen on programs like Cosmos we just don't have that much time to stop it . i'm not one that thinks we will have to reduce it back to 1900 levels but we do need to slow it down and give our self's more time to get the tech that will start to reduce our output and i don't think it will cost as much as some say it will .

If we could reduce it down to even 1 ppm per year that would give us another 150 yrs which should be enough time for tech to catch up and fix it but not at 2.4 and you have to remember it's going up , every 10-20 years it's going up more ,at 4 ppm well have less than 50 yrs . We need to act now and start to reduce it

I'll use the example of a house loan if you add 0.5% to the interest rate every year compounded it won't be long before you just can't afford the repayments on the interest let alone the loan .And that is what we are doing with CO2

---

Glenn Savill said:

I'll use the example of a house loan if you add 0.5% to the interest rate every year compounded it won't be long before you just can't afford the repayments on the interest let alone the loan .And that is what we are doing with CO2

Today Mr. Glenn Savill, We The CO2 Lovers Society, Honor You with The Roll Your Eyes Award. Here to Present is Dr. HO HUM from Rapi Nui. Guess Da Doc has had Too Little O2 and Too Much CO2. Oh My.

HO HUM. Beat Dat Compounding Drum.

Oh My, Congrats Matey.

' '

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

It just became a lot more likely that we will have to curtail agriculture in addition to eliminating fossil fuel use and curtailing industrial activity.

That means a lot of people are going to starve. Looks like there is no way around a significant haircut in the population of humans. I guess the UN had better get busy and adopt a one child policy to save humanity.

---

Kong your a lot younger than me so you will have to put up with what ever happens as i'll be dead before it gets really bad . I'm not so worried about temps as we don't really know which way it will go i'm more worried at the rate we are pumping the stuff into the air . At 400 ppm and going up at aprox 2.4- 2.8 ppm 100 years will add 280 to what we already have and according to what i've herd and seen on programs like Cosmos we just don't have that much time to stop it . i'm not one that thinks we will have to reduce it back to 1900 levels but we do need to slow it down and give our self's more time to get the tech that will start to reduce our output and i don't think it will cost as much as some say it will .

If we could reduce it down to even 1 ppm per year that would give us another 150 yrs which should be enough time for tech to catch up and fix it but not at 2.4 and you have to remember it's going up , every 10-20 years it's going up more ,at 4 ppm well have less than 50 yrs . We need to act now and start to reduce it

I'll use the example of a house loan if you add 0.5% to the interest rate every year compounded it won't be long before you just can't afford the repayments on the interest let alone the loan .And that is what we are doing with CO2

Well, Einstein did say, when asked what the most powerful force in the universe was, "Compound interest". <grin>

You are not likely that much older than I am. My dad is 90, after all, and I am in my 50s.

I agree that we are pumping out the COâ‚‚ at a furious rate.

I do NOT disagree with GHG-AGW. I DO disagree with the AlGoreist bunch.

They present the problem, then imply the heck out of it being fixable with just phasing out the use of Fossil Fuels, replacing them with things like Wind and Solar, then ALL will be fine. Sorry, but it won't.

Sorry, but the use of Fossil Fuels are NOT the only source of anthropogenic COâ‚‚ and other GHG emissions.


I am sorry if I get on your case a bit often. It is just difficult to understand where you are coming from when you make some of your more... bizarre statements.

From knowing the magnitude of the problem, and seeing the AlGoreists promise a quick & easy fix, as it were... This leads me to believe that they are VERY similar to the 'deniers'. IMO, they both have the same motive. Namely, increasing their money and political power.

Sorry, but Science has no real 'Magic' cure for the problem, no Silver Bullet.

The solutions needed are going to be hard, and tough. It will be touch and go to get enough political will across humanity to do them, a task made tougher by the AlGoreists promising a 'quick and easy fix'.

People are definitely NOT going to like what they are going to have to do. This is why I want the science as nailed down as possible, to hopefully convince them that it is going to be necessary. Yes, right now most scientists accept the likelyhood of AGW. That isn't the science that needs to be settled. The part that needs to be settled is the part about, well, the climate's sensitivity to COâ‚‚. Also, several other aspects.

Sorry, but Science has no real 'Magic' cure for the problem, no Silver Bullet.

The solutions needed are going to be hard, and tough. It will be touch and go to get enough political will across humanity to do them, a task made tougher by the AlGoreists promising a 'quick and easy fix'.

People are definitely NOT going to like what they are going to have to do. This is why I want the science as nailed down as possible, to hopefully convince them that it is going to be necessary. Yes, right now most scientists accept the likelyhood of AGW. That isn't the science that needs to be settled. The part that needs to be settled is the part about, well, the climate's sensitivity to COâ‚‚. Also, several other aspects.

Truth has been spoken.

---

When 'They' Are Dropping Like Flies in Chongqing from Too Much CO2 and Too Little O2, I Might Wonder, but Until 'Then', HO HUM, Take Out is Yum Yum. Seez dat O2 and CO2 Clearly? Yeah, Me Too.

Got Sweet? Sour?

' '

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Wow! What a wonderful recent flurry here of Denialist twisting and turning and squirming! All any-which-way except the simple truth.

And then there is the one outlier where supposedly we should nuke the population down to a mere few thousands. Are they the 'chosen few' who are busily profiting from polluting the rest of us to hell?...


We have the tech already to clean up our act and do that cost effectively. The only problem there is that opens up new groups to profit where the old dirty fossils can't.

More of a question is do we have the politics and culture to change our present race from destruction to something sustainable? And in time? And for much less cost than crash and calamity?

Can we sustain a balance of the juxtaposition of natural green and industrial concrete?


All on our only one world,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Can we sustain a balance of the juxtaposition of natural green and industrial concrete?

Of course we can. Unfortunately you may not like it when the numbers are run and come up with how many human units can be on the planet to do so. It is kind of like global warming deniers when you deny that number.

---

Wow! What a wonderful recent flurry here of Denialist twisting and turning and squirming! All any-which-way except the simple truth.

And then there is the one outlier where supposedly we should nuke the population down to a mere few thousands. Are they the 'chosen few' who are busily profiting from polluting the rest of us to hell?...


We have the tech already to clean up our act and do that cost effectively. The only problem there is that opens up new groups to profit where the old dirty fossils can't.

More of a question is do we have the politics and culture to change our present race from destruction to something sustainable? And in time? And for much less cost than crash and calamity?

Can we sustain a balance of the juxtaposition of natural green and industrial concrete?


All on our only one world,
Martin

Martin... Maybe these three simple yes or no questions will help you clear things up.

Do you accept the premise that human caused GHG emissions cause Climate Change?

Yes or No?

Do you accept that a rather broad swath of human activity cause GHG emissions, not JUST use of Fossil Fuels?

Yes or No?


Do you accept the possibility (raised by that paper I linked a few posts ago) that the GHG emissions from Agriculture since the dawn of of the Agricultural Revolution has produced global warming at least approximately the same as (and likely greater than) the GHG emissions from fossil fuel use and industry since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution has produced?

Yes or No?

If you answered Yes to all three, then what is your issue?

If you answered No to one or more of them, then You, Sir, are a Denier!

The first two questions are supported by the IPCC AR5 WG3 report.
The third question by the following paper:
http://anr.sagepub.com/content/1/2/147.full.pdf+html

wherein the authors used the same models used on the Fossil Fuel/Industrial GHG emissions and applied them to Agricultural and land use emissions.

I'm sorry but the replacement of Fossil Fuel use with alternative 'Green' power is not going to be enough.

You can either join the discussion with an open mind, or you can keep on drinking the AlGore Koolaid. Your choice.

Simonator wrote: I am not sure that I understand the part about KY Jelly.


KY jelly is a personal lubricant for sexual and other types of insertions. KY is also the postal abbreviation for one of our States. Kentucky< which is just North of Tennessee where I now live.

[/URL[/quote]

Simonator wrote: I am not sure that I understand the part about KY Jelly.


KY jelly is a personal lubricant for sexual and other types of insertions. KY is also the postal abbreviation for one of our States. Kentucky< which is just North of Tennessee where I now live.

I know what KY jelly is, i just didn't understand how it linked to the Virgin islands.

I assumed the freezer franchise in Alaska was a reference to a useless business venture, like my mother's favourite of "selling sand to the arabs".

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Simon. The virgins don't have sex--Does the word mean something else in your Native Vernacular.