| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 140464 | 2015-10-16 19:47:00 | Global Warming | jayal (1291) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1410052 | 2015-10-23 01:53:00 | Sorry Nick, I think you'll find 120ppm and .012% are the same number. You are talking about the relative increase in C02 and B.M. is quoting the increase in C02 as a % of the atmospheric gases, your numbers are actually the same. |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1410053 | 2015-10-23 02:03:00 | You are hilariously, ludicrously, terribly wrong. The increase is from 280ppm to 400ppm, which is an increase of 120ppm, or 42.8%. Just a little different to 0.012 :lol: The Co2 has increased 0.012% in relation to the Total Atmosphere which is minuscule. :rolleyes: |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1410054 | 2015-10-23 04:08:00 | Ivar Giaever Hmmn, another 'expert'. "And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned" . Yep, thats some damn fine research there. Everything on google is true. Now he is being quoted as some sort of expert on climate change , on various websites "While Giaever is certainly a highly accomplished physicist, that does not automatically make him a climate expert as well." www.skepticalscience.com and the other side of his story, just for balance :-) www.climatedepot.com But lets go to the claim that there are no scientists who dont believe in global warming, how often do we here that. heres 1000 for a start. www.climatedepot.com Too much BS, from both sides of the arguement . Interesting links 1101, thanks. I think you and I could get close to agreeing on a couple of points. 1: This matter is far from cut & dried and the more chickens that come home to roost the harder it gets to know exactly what’s going on. It seems one side wants to run the matter along religious lines where the scriptures aren’t open to debate, and the other wants to question the scriptures. Sort of leaves us with Pseudo Science v Science. 2: Regardless, filling the Pseudo Scientists trough with Tax Payers money isn’t going to solve anything. 3: Given that little or nothing has happened in the last 18yrs I don’t see any rush to waste further money chasing fairies at the bottom of the garden. |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1410055 | 2015-10-23 07:36:00 | Sorry Nick, I think you'll find 120ppm and .012% are the same number. You are talking about the relative increase in C02 and B.M. is quoting the increase in C02 as a % of the atmospheric gases, your numbers are actually the same. This thread about global warming is a farce. The warming is primarily caused by the increase in the greenhouse gas CO2 in the atmosphere, which has incresed from 280ppm to 400ppm in the last 300 years or so. Forty something percent increase is very significant, that is why the planet is experiencing global warming/climate change. Have you seen the cover of this week's Listener magazine? |
rumpty (2863) | ||
| 1410056 | 2015-10-23 09:44:00 | Sorry Nick, I think you'll find 120ppm and . 012% are the same number . You are talking about the relative increase in C02 and B . M . is quoting the increase in C02 as a % of the atmospheric gases, your numbers are actually the same . I know where he got his figure from, it's just horrendously misleading, as well as being terrifically pointless . The Co2 has increased 0 . 012% in relation to the Total Atmosphere which is minuscule . :rolleyes: Except, total Co2 in the air has increased by over 40%, which is by no means minuscule . |
Nick G (16709) | ||
| 1410057 | 2015-10-23 09:46:00 | Interesting links 1101, thanks. I think you and I could get close to agreeing on a couple of points. 1: This matter is far from cut & dried and the more chickens that come home to roost the harder it gets to know exactly what’s going on. It seems one side wants to run the matter along religious lines where the scriptures aren’t open to debate, and the other wants to question the scriptures. Sort of leaves us with Pseudo Science v Science. 2: Regardless, filling the Pseudo Scientists trough with Tax Payers money isn’t going to solve anything. 3: Given that little or nothing has happened in the last 18yrs I don’t see any rush to waste further money chasing fairies at the bottom of the garden. Except, the side that you pronounce as 'Psuedo Science' are actual scientists who back up their findings with data. Your so called 'scientists' for the most part, do no such thing. |
Nick G (16709) | ||
| 1410058 | 2015-10-23 16:44:00 | The warming is primarily caused by the increase in the greenhouse gas CO2 in the atmosphere, which has incresed from 280ppm to 400ppm in the last 300 years or so. Forty something percent increase is very significant, that is why the planet is experiencing global warming/climate change. What Global Warming? There hasn’t been any for 18 years and only 0.8 degrees Celsius in the last 135 years. As for trying to hype up the Co2 importance by using percentages let me put it to you this way. You have a cup of tea. You place in it one grain of sugar. You can’t taste it so you add another grain. You still can’t taste it. Why, because even though you’ve increased the sugar 100% the amount is so miniscule as to be unnoticeable. That is why trying to cause alarm by saying Co2 has increased 42% is nonsense. |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1410059 | 2015-10-23 18:16:00 | What Global Warming? There hasn’t been any for 18 years and only 0.8 degrees Celsius in the last 135 years. As for trying to hype up the Co2 importance by using percentages let me put it to you this way. You have a cup of tea. You place in it one grain of sugar. You can’t taste it so you add another grain. You still can’t taste it. Why, because even though you’ve increased the sugar 100% the amount is so miniscule as to be unnoticeable. That is why trying to cause alarm by saying Co2 has increased 42% is nonsense. And hence the reason nothing will get resolved because the ostriches can't see the problem for the sand in their eyes and ears. |
gary67 (56) | ||
| 1410060 | 2015-10-23 18:50:00 | And hence the reason nothing will get resolved because the ostriches can't see the problem for the sand in their eyes and ears. So the whole debate is between the "Ostriches" on the one hand and the "Chicken littles" on the other? :) |
CliveM (6007) | ||
| 1410061 | 2015-10-23 19:52:00 | And hence the reason nothing will get resolved because the ostriches can't see the problem for the sand in their eyes and ears . Gary, I am sorry to hear about your Ostrich not being able to see because of sand in its ears . Whilst some would put this down to Global Warming I feel the matter should in the first instance be taken up with Occupational Health and Safety who are experts in dealing with matters of this nature . They will recommend what to do about its ears so it can see again . It might even be eligible for ACC . Good Luck . |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 | |||||