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
1233894	2011-09-29 19:50:00	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. Idiot Dude, have you seen the airports in the US & UK. See all those planes constantly coming in & taking off?? Notice all those commercial planes world wide ?? So all the commercial airliners, all the cars worldwide, all the coal power station & coal home fire put out less emissions than the US Military. Are you making this up(guessing) or do you have facts to back it up Why not blame NASA's solid rocket boosters as well. After all they put out more pollutants than a car in the same time.	1101 (13337)
1233895	2011-09-29 20:31:00	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. :lol: Maybe you would be good enough to refer me to the works of who measured the 280ppm in 1800AD and what machine was used to take that measurement. Dare I suggest that any machines used back then, supposing there were any, would have a horrific margin of era given such minuscule quantities? The other thing is that in 1974 eminent scientists were predicting an Ice Age again. See Here (www.time.com) Given the amount of Carbon pumped out through the Industrial Revolutions it’s a wonder cities in Britain weren’t cooked instead of frozen. I suggest the whole thing is a cruel hoax with large monetary spin-offs for the traders and the government. ;)	B.M. (505)
1233896	2011-09-29 20:35:00	I suggest the whole thing is a cruel hoax with large monetary spin-offs for the traders and the government. ;) Ain't that the truth ... :thumbs:	SP8's (9836)
1233897	2011-09-29 20:38:00	@ BM. Here you go:- www.radix.net	Snorkbox (15764)
1233898	2011-09-29 21:12:00	If the CO2 levels can manage to get really high, trees will thrive, we'll spiflicate, and the rampant vegetation will gradually die, decay, etc forming oil and coal. Assuming that the process happens at roughly the rate it did last time, we will more or less re-fuel the planet. It's a bit slow though. Roughly a million years of conversion and storage to give us 4 months supply at the rate we are using it now. These estimates could be a bit out, make a note in your diary to give the situation a quick scan every 100K years. (People complain that it takes overnight to charge electric cars!) All the methane this vegetation produces will be handy too, it will block of a fair bit of the UV that the ozone layer used to stop. This is probably a good thing, it will be healthy for the frogs that will be needed to eat all the cockroaches that will be the other form of self propelled life.	R2x1 (4628)
1233899	2011-09-29 22:01:00	@ BM. Here you go:- www.radix.net :lol: Ahhhhh right, so the whole thing is a guesstimate taken on a couple of Ice Cores by those with a barrow to push and a job to retain. Quote: “Ice cores show that during the past 1000 years until about the year 1800, atmospheric CO2 was fairly stable at levels between 270 and 290 ppmv. The 1994 value of 358 ppmv is higher than any CO2 level observed over the past 220,000 years. In the Vostok and Byrd ice cores, CO2 does not exceed 300 ppmv. A more detailed record from peat suggests a temporary peak of ~315 ppmv about 4,700 years ago, but this needs further confirmation. [Figge, figure 3] [Schimel 94, p 44-45] [White]” I love the bit (The 1994 value of 358 ppmv is higher than any CO2 level observed over the past 220,000 years.) No kidding. :D (shock horror) Maybe we should wind the clock back 220,000 years and fix the problem. ;) But let’s look at the figures provided. The entire CO2 level is not “Man Made”. 97% is perfectly natural with 3% “Man Made” so I figure they’re chasing fairies given the Man Made portion is never going to be reduced significantly and in the meantime we’re paying. I wonder if someone ripped me off for $11 in a $1,000,000 deal they’d call in the Serious Fraud Office? :groan:	B.M. (505)
1233900	2011-09-29 22:28:00	Please note that I did not say I actually believe what I posted! You wanted to know so I found it.	Snorkbox (15764)
1233901	2011-09-29 23:43:00	Idiot PMS much, bro? Dude, have you seen the airports in the US & UK . See all those planes constantly coming in & taking off?? Notice all those commercial planes world wide ?? Fun Fact: There are more F16s in the world than Jumbo jets (Jumbo jets are designed for 350+ passengers) . :) The point is, commercial jets do a task, fly people and cargo around . They tend to add money to economies . They do play carbon tax don't they? The US Military goes all around the world killing folk, they don't make money, they don't add to anyone's economy . . . (Well, they do help in stealing the oil . . . ) Do they pay for cor carbon credits? So all the commercial airliners, all the cars worldwide, all the coal power station & coal home fire put out less emissions than the US Military . Did I say that? In fact, I distinctly recall saying non-commercial vehicles in NZ . Are you making this up(guessing) or do you have facts to back it up Yes, it was crap I made up in sarcasm . But now having spend 10 minutes with google . I have come up with . . . Based on the fact that US military is responsible for just over 1% (1100 trillion BTU from first google result) of total US energy use (101553 . 86 trillion BTU wiki); 83% of US energy is in form of fossil fuel . Total NZ energy consumption is 886 . 45 (trillion BTU wiki) . ~38% of NZ energy consumption is in the transport sector (MOED website) unfortunately I don't have breakdowns for this, so I can't know how much is commercial or non-commercial . Which makes it 336 trillion BTU used by transport in NZ vs 1100 trillion BTU used by the US military . (Yes, this is very flawed guesstimation) So yeah, so the US military uses 4 times more energy than transport in NZ per day . If energy consumption is proportionate to CO2, and other crap that kills the ozone layer . . . :) Isn't that scary? Why not blame NASA's solid rocket boosters as well . After all they put out more pollutants than a car in the same time . Meh, space extrapolation has more merit than some US boys driving their tanks over some random raghead's car in Bhagdad, or destroying all of Libya's infrastructure . . . How much energy will it take to rebuild it all again? Never mind, each to his own . :)	Cato (6936)
1233902	2011-09-30 06:26:00	:lol: Maybe you would be good enough to refer me to the works of who measured the 280ppm in 1800AD and what machine was used to take that measurement . Dare I suggest that any machines used back then, supposing there were any, would have a horrific margin of era given such minuscule quantities? The other thing is that in 1974 eminent scientists were predicting an Ice Age again . See Here ( . time . com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-1,00 . html" target="_blank">www . time . com) Given the amount of Carbon pumped out through the Industrial Revolutions it’s a wonder cities in Britain weren’t cooked instead of frozen . I suggest the whole thing is a cruel hoax with large monetary spin-offs for the traders and the government . ;) The point is, you don't have to be there at a particular time to measure some condition that existed at that time . All sorts of geological and climatic processes can be reconstructed from evidence available today . To be sure, 19th century attempts to measure CO2 levels in the atmosphere tended to be all over the place, but technology and techniques have vastly improved since then . We can now determine historic CO2 levels from air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica, Greenland and many alpine glaciers . The time scale along the cores can be determined by isotopic methods and calibrated by, eg, dust deposits from volcanic eruptions that have occurred at known times . Air bubbles extracted from a core sample of known age can have their CO2 content measured by methods routinely available in laboratories dedicated to this sort of work, for example, infra-red absorption methods . This way, atmospheric CO2 levels can be measured back as far as 800,000 years into the past . It is also possible to reconstruct global temperatures back over the same period from mass-spectrometric measurements on oxygen isotopes from the same ice cores . From all this appears a remarkable correlation between the CO2 variations and the temperature variations - but this correlation needs to be interpreted carefully . We now know that the initial temperature changes are triggered by slight changes in the earth's orbit, the so-called Milankovitch variations . The size of the variations are not themselves sufficient to explain the temperature changes that are observed, but what happens is that a small temperature rise (for example) causes the release of a small quantity of CO2 from the oceans . This CO2 then reinforces the rise in temperature, releasing more CO2, and it is this positive feedback effect that causes the large temperature changes of up to 9 or 10 degrees that gave rise to the ice ages . Those temperature changes also resulted in sea-level changes of up to 100 metres as polar and Greenland ice-caps melted . All these effects are observable, they are not anyone's speculation . Today, the atmospheric CO2 levels are as high they have ever been over the last 800,000 years . This doesn't mean the sea-levels are about to jump up by 100 metres, because the past changes took place over thousands of years, which is the sort of time that Antarctica would need to completely melt . But, just concentrating on sea-level alone, it won't take 100 metres to cause homo sapiens a lot of problems, 2 or 3 will be enough . We can get that from simple thermal expansion of the top layers of the ocean with a temperature rise of a couple of degrees . Another point that the climate scientists are trying to get us to grasp is that the changes taking place today are not occurring over a period of thousands of years, but instead we are injecting CO2 into the atmosphere over a period of decades . Think of pushing an egg gently across a table as compared to hitting it with a hammer . Don't take my word for it - there is wealth of literature and information out there about global warming and the evidence for it . Take a look at [URL="www . realclimate . org"/URL], a website set up by climate scientists to comment on the latest developments . For an interesting sceptical viewpoint, try "Poles Apart" by Gareth Morgan & John McCrystal . Morgan (yes, that Gareth Morgan) started out as a climate change sceptic, so he went to the experts and challenged them to convince him . They did .	Jayess64 (8703)
1233903	2011-09-30 06:46:00	Think of pushing an egg gently across a table as compared to hitting it with a hammer. Any one who writes crap like that is not worth the time of day.	mikebartnz (21)
1 2 3 4