Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 120808	2011-09-27 08:47:00	Climate change ... an Australian perspective ... sorry.	SP8's (9836)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1233884	2011-09-28 10:36:00	The reason "everyone's calling it climate change now" (in fact they're not) is that global warming is the cause and climate change is the effect, and it's the effect that is our problem. The "myth" of CO2 as a pollutant is semantic babble. A pollutant is an undesirable constituent - the concern is not that there is CO2 in the atmosphere but that there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere. And "too much" means enough to cause adverse effects for the human species, and, as it happens, many other species as well.	Jayess64 (8703)
1233885	2011-09-28 14:14:00	Lets blame the US army for global warming. Very informed argument there. A fighter jet with an after burner will consume about 2x the fuel than a jumbo jet at takeoff. M1 Abrams uses about 5x more fuel than a truck of the same weight. Following which, I don't believe they have emission testing etc, like your average truck or passenger vehicle... I would say the US army pumps out more pollutants/ozone-killing crap in a day than all the non-commercial in NZ in a month!	Cato (6936)
1233886	2011-09-28 18:38:00	SO imagine..... in 40 years of paying carbon tax, nobody remembers this time of why it was even brought in in the first place but we just pay it.... and the climate is no different than it is now. Will they finally admit they were wrong?	Gobe1 (6290)
1233887	2011-09-28 22:31:00	- the concern is not that there is CO2 in the atmosphere but that there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere. And "too much" means enough to cause adverse effects for the human species, and, as it happens, many other species as well. But isn’t there the same amount of Co2 in the atmosphere as there has always been? :confused: i.e. a miserable 0.03% :D	B.M. (505)
1233888	2011-09-29 03:43:00	0.0301679462 to be precise B.M. ... just licked my finger & stuck it out the window ... the wet finger never lies ... :D	SP8's (9836)
1233889	2011-09-29 07:20:00	0.0301679462 to be precise B.M. ... just licked my finger & stuck it out the window ... the wet finger never lies ... :D Ok, Ok, I concede. :D :thumbs:	B.M. (505)
1233890	2011-09-29 07:26:00	But isn’t there the same amount of Co2 in the atmosphere as there has always been? :confused: i.e. a miserable 0.03% :D Err... mate, where have you been all this time? It was at 280 parts per million up to about 1800 AD, and it is currently at about 385 parts per million. That 280 ppm is enough to keep the mean temperature of the earth about 33 degrees higher than it would be without the greenhouse warming.	Jayess64 (8703)
1233891	2011-09-29 07:58:00	Err... mate, where have you been all this time? It was at 280 parts per million up to about 1800 AD, and it is currently at about 385 parts per million. That 280 ppm is enough to keep the mean temperature of the earth about 33 degrees higher than it would be without the greenhouse warming. and it has been over a thousand in the past so I'm not going to crap myself.	mikebartnz (21)
1233892	2011-09-29 09:36:00	and it has been over a thousand in the past so I'm not going to crap myself. But you might well have done if you had been around then. What exactly is your point? CO2 levels were high in the past and we know what happened. We are pushing them up high now, so why should the consequences be any different?	Jayess64 (8703)
1233893	2011-09-29 10:18:00	But you might well have done if you had been around then. What exactly is your point? CO2 levels were high in the past and we know what happened. We are pushing them up high now, so why should the consequences be any different? You might like to enlighten me as to what the drastic consequence were when it was so high.	mikebartnz (21)
1 2 3 4