Calculate your carbon footprint

Cynic wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 21:18:01 +0100, Phil Randal
wrote:

Global warming is due to fluctuations in the Sun. Several planets
in the solar system are now known to be warming also.

That myth is debunked he

http://reasic.com/2007/07/04/reasic-...green-options/

Debunked huh? The theory was proposed by the head of Russia's space
research.

Abdussamatov is pontificating well outside his field of expertise. He has
not published any peer-reviewed papers in which he explains these theories,
or provided any data supportive of them. That's hardly suprising, given that
there has been no significant increase in any of the solar indices for at
least 30 years (direct satellite observation), and probably much longer.
It's a crock.

There's a rather more thorough debunking he

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

"Cynic" wrote in message
...
but whatever the real case, it is difficult to see that we could make
any significant difference in any *practical* way. So rather than
trying to stop the inevitable, surely it is better to start preparing
for the outcome - whatever it is being caused by?

If we saved the money that we're going to waste on a futile attempt to
reduce CO2 emissions and spent it on improving coastal defences and so forth
it would make more sense. Why throw away resources on a battle that can't be
won? We need to be realistic.

Bill

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"Cynic" wrote in message
...
but whatever the real case, it is difficult to see that we could make
any significant difference in any *practical* way. So rather than
trying to stop the inevitable, surely it is better to start preparing
for the outcome - whatever it is being caused by?

If we saved the money that we're going to waste on a futile attempt to
reduce CO2 emissions and spent it on improving coastal defences and so
forth it would make more sense. Why throw away resources on a battle that
can't be won? We need to be realistic.

That too would be a waste of money. Global warming is over, as
anyone who has gone out without a brolly will have found.
Anyhow CO2 is a product of warming not the cause. Mars
is also warming too however there are no people to blame for
that!! The 'excuse' is that a change in the tilt of the planet
caused frozen CO2 to 'melt' and cause the warming.
However Mars as you know is round, any tilt to melt CO2
would cause it to freeze on the other side, Net effect zero.Also
I don't recall and the change in the tilt of mars hitting the headlines.
Pretty hard to shift something with the inertia of Mars much!!
Mercury is also warming too.

It's all a lie, a con. Yes there have been more CO2 recently but it has not
been matched by increases in temperature, and certaintly not in proportion
to the rise (or we would be frying). Infact it appears that the earth is
cooling.


http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/20...r-in-last.html

And the main article.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/ca...tures-ice.html


Warming by CO2 would be immediate according to the way it works (or is
supposed
to work). If there is more CO2 the sun light will hit it immediately and it
will produce
more heat. There is no time lag whatsoever.


All the records show CO2 rising for 800 years after the temperature stops
rising,
why is this CO2 not causing warming? Has it stopped working? Indeed the
temperature
*always* falls in this period of rising CO2.
OK you say, maybe the sun just happened to be less active in this period and
that
would explain the fall in temperature whilst the CO2 rose. Mind you it would
be
a staggering remarkable coincidence that this happened every time, that the
sun
somehow knew to shine less bright at these times.

Of course the real and easy to follow explaination is as follows.The Sun
gets brighter
and warms the earths atmosphere which in turn warms the surface of the sea,
warm
sea releases gases (thats why a kettle boils when you heat it!!) but it
takes a long
time to heat huge oceans!! 800 years apparently, that explains the lag.
When the atmosphere cools it take a long time, 800 years for the oceans to
cool and subsequently absorb more gases.

Imagine you had a warm bath of water with CO2 above it.It will take a long
time
for that bath to cool and absorb the CO2, how many hours would you imagine
it
would take? 5? 6? 7?
Now imagine that bath is a big as the adlantic, pacific and all the other
oceans!!
How long will that take to cool? 5 hours? Not on you life!! 800 years seems
a much more reasonable time scale!!


4,344,685.7 gallons of water in the pacific.

8765 hours in a year

7,200,000 hours in 800 years.

Now if a gallon of water took 2 hours to cool then you could
say that 4,344,685.7 gallons (the pacific) would take about 8,600,000 hours
( 800 years) to cool. Rough figures, but they are in the right 'ball park'.

Conclusion CO2 induced global warming is b*llocks!!

This is because whhilst CO2 does absorb some sunlight, and produce heat,
that sunlight would otherwise hit the ground and produce as much, if not
more
heat!!!! (As anyone who had ever felt tarmac on a sunny day will have
noticed!!).

The CO2 myth exposed by Lord Turkey Cough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, fortunately Lord Turkey knows it
all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And we (well I) know the heat produced by CO2 is produced higher than
grouond level
(mainly) and rises and thus cools in the upper atmosophere so it has little
effect. Whereas
heat produced at ground level has maximum heating effect.

This is why atmospheric CO2 produces global *cooling*, and this is exactly
what
the records show!! And it is exactly what a correctly thought out theory,
like
mind predicts!!

So who do you believe? Fantastically clever LTC or those kn*bheads at the
meteorlogical office?

I rest my case M'lud :O)

A rather inconvienient truth for Al Gore and the crackpot enviromentalists.

Anyway I must stick some more coal on my fossil fuel open fire, it's getting
rather chilly :O|











Bill

"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message
...

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"Cynic" wrote in message
...
but whatever the real case, it is difficult to see that we could make
any significant difference in any *practical* way. So rather than
trying to stop the inevitable, surely it is better to start preparing
for the outcome - whatever it is being caused by?

If we saved the money that we're going to waste on a futile attempt to
reduce CO2 emissions and spent it on improving coastal defences and so
forth it would make more sense. Why throw away resources on a battle that
can't be won? We need to be realistic.

That too would be a waste of money. Global warming is over, as
anyone who has gone out without a brolly will have found.
Anyhow CO2 is a product of warming not the cause. Mars
is also warming too however there are no people to blame for
that!! The 'excuse' is that a change in the tilt of the planet
caused frozen CO2 to 'melt' and cause the warming.
However Mars as you know is round, any tilt to melt CO2
would cause it to freeze on the other side, Net effect zero.Also
I don't recall and the change in the tilt of mars hitting the headlines.
Pretty hard to shift something with the inertia of Mars much!!
Mercury is also warming too.

It's all a lie, a con. Yes there have been more CO2 recently but it has
not
been matched by increases in temperature, and certaintly not in proportion
to the rise (or we would be frying). Infact it appears that the earth is
cooling.


http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/20...r-in-last.html

And the main article.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/ca...tures-ice.html


Warming by CO2 would be immediate according to the way it works (or is
supposed
to work). If there is more CO2 the sun light will hit it immediately and
it will produce
more heat. There is no time lag whatsoever.


All the records show CO2 rising for 800 years after the temperature stops
rising,
why is this CO2 not causing warming? Has it stopped working? Indeed the
temperature
*always* falls in this period of rising CO2.
OK you say, maybe the sun just happened to be less active in this period
and that
would explain the fall in temperature whilst the CO2 rose. Mind you it
would be
a staggering remarkable coincidence that this happened every time, that
the sun
somehow knew to shine less bright at these times.

Of course the real and easy to follow explaination is as follows.The Sun
gets brighter
and warms the earths atmosphere which in turn warms the surface of the
sea, warm
sea releases gases (thats why a kettle boils when you heat it!!) but it
takes a long
time to heat huge oceans!! 800 years apparently, that explains the lag.
When the atmosphere cools it take a long time, 800 years for the oceans to
cool and subsequently absorb more gases.

Imagine you had a warm bath of water with CO2 above it.It will take a long
time
for that bath to cool and absorb the CO2, how many hours would you imagine
it
would take? 5? 6? 7?
Now imagine that bath is a big as the adlantic, pacific and all the other
oceans!!
How long will that take to cool? 5 hours? Not on you life!! 800 years
seems
a much more reasonable time scale!!


4,344,685.7 gallons of water in the pacific.

8765 hours in a year

7,200,000 hours in 800 years.

Now if a gallon of water took 2 hours to cool then you could
say that 4,344,685.7 gallons (the pacific) would take about 8,600,000
hours
( 800 years) to cool. Rough figures, but they are in the right 'ball
park'.

Conclusion CO2 induced global warming is b*llocks!!

This is because whhilst CO2 does absorb some sunlight, and produce heat,
that sunlight would otherwise hit the ground and produce as much, if not
more
heat!!!! (As anyone who had ever felt tarmac on a sunny day will have
noticed!!).

The CO2 myth exposed by Lord Turkey Cough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, fortunately Lord Turkey knows it
all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And we (well I) know the heat produced by CO2 is produced higher than
grouond level
(mainly) and rises and thus cools in the upper atmosophere so it has
little effect. Whereas
heat produced at ground level has maximum heating effect.

This is why atmospheric CO2 produces global *cooling*, and this is exactly
what
the records show!! And it is exactly what a correctly thought out theory,
like
mind predicts!!

So who do you believe? Fantastically clever LTC or those kn*bheads at the
meteorlogical office?

I rest my case M'lud :O)

A rather inconvienient truth for Al Gore and the crackpot
enviromentalists.

Anyway I must stick some more coal on my fossil fuel open fire, it's
getting
rather chilly :O|



But hold it you say!! What about all the rain and flooding!!!? How do you
explain that oh
wise one LTC? We have caught you out there!!


Simple I say!!!

Cooler air holds less water (obviously!!).

Thats why its been p*ssing it down!!!


Another problem solved.











Bill

Dead Paul wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 22:44:45 +0000, Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

http://www.bestfootforward.com/carbonlife.htm


Now change the values to give the lowest result possible (by cheating).

And low and behold we still need 1.2 planets.


So the solution to global warming is to murder 1/6 of the worlds
population.

George Bush has already made an early start on that in Iraq.

Who said he was not green?

All this "carbon footprint" claptrap is softening up to get you ready
for more taxes.

Unfortunately this has the understandable side effect of making many
people cynical about global warming.

Global warming is due to fluctuations in the Sun. Several planets in the
solar system are now known to be warming also.

Global warming is not due solely to fluctuations in the Sun. Other
factors are at work also, human industrial activity being a major
player.

Peter

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 01:21:20 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Global warming is due to fluctuations in the Sun. Several planets
in the solar system are now known to be warming also.

That myth is debunked he

http://reasic.com/2007/07/04/reasic-...green-options/

Debunked huh? The theory was proposed by the head of Russia's space
research.

Abdussamatov is pontificating well outside his field of expertise. He has
not published any peer-reviewed papers in which he explains these theories,
or provided any data supportive of them.

How many papers has "reasic" published?

--
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 01:21:20 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Global warming is due to fluctuations in the Sun. Several planets
in the solar system are now known to be warming also.

That myth is debunked he

http://reasic.com/2007/07/04/reasic-...green-options/

Debunked huh? The theory was proposed by the head of Russia's space
research.

Abdussamatov is pontificating well outside his field of expertise.
He has not published any peer-reviewed papers in which he explains
these theories, or provided any data supportive of them.

How many papers has "reasic" published?

I have no idea. I am not relying on his refutation! That's why I gave you
what I regard as a better link. Here it is again:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

Cynic wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 21:18:01 +0100, Phil Randal
wrote:

Global warming is due to fluctuations in the Sun. Several planets in the
solar system are now known to be warming also.

That myth is debunked he

http://reasic.com/2007/07/04/reasic-...green-options/

Debunked huh? The theory was proposed by the head of Russia's space
research. Someone calling him/herself "reasic" has a contrary
opinion. Please point me to reasic's qualifications.

What I see is a similar thing happening to planets as to Earth, and a
similar thing happening to what has happened several times before.
But even though the changes that matter are the same, we are told that
the cause is *completely* different to anything that is happening
elsewhere or in the past, based on theory rather than solid
experimental data (which would be impossible to do on the scale
involved)

More reasonable perhaps to believe that the same factors are at least
partially responsible, if not the main factors.

but whatever the real case, it is difficult to see that we could make
any significant difference in any *practical* way. So rather than
trying to stop the inevitable, surely it is better to start preparing
for the outcome - whatever it is being caused by?

Oh, stop trying to flog a very dead horse. The theory has been
discredited, and you're making a complete fool of yourself:

See http://blog.petedecarlo.com/?p=41 for a commentary on the Nature
article which blows it all apart and
http://www.petedecarlo.com/files/448008a.pdf for the article itself.

Phil Randal wrote:

Oh, stop trying to flog a very dead horse. The theory has been
discredited, and you're making a complete fool of yourself:

See http://blog.petedecarlo.com/?p=41 for a commentary on the Nature
article which blows it all apart and
http://www.petedecarlo.com/files/448008a.pdf for the article itself.

Add to the list of required reading:

Cosmic Rays and Global Warming
T. SLOAN, A.W.WOLFENDALE


Abstract: It has been claimed by others that observed temporal
correlations of terrestrial cloud cover with ‘the cosmic ray intensity’
are causal. The possibility arises, therefore, of a connection between
cosmic rays and Global Warming. If true, the implications would be very
great.

We have examined this claim to look for evidence to corroborate it. So
far we have not found any and so our tentative conclusions are to doubt
it. Such correlations as appear are more likely to be due to the
small variations in solar irradiance, which, of course, correlate with
cosmic rays. We estimate that less than 15% of the 11-year cycle warming
variations are due to cosmic rays and less than 2% of the warming
over the last 35 years is due to this cause.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...706.4294v1.pdf

"Phil Randal" wrote in message
...

All our fuel sources are bio - renewable, oil is plant derived, just a
long time ago.