CO2 - The government is stupid
Discussion
putridp said:
A bonfire releases CO2 that would be released anyway when it rots. Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 that would otherwise remain locked deep underground. Therefore, bonfire = carbon neutral.
Interesting. So by having a bonfire I'm merely accelerating the carbon release process?Also, what's the score on the different types of combustion? I.e. how much of it went as CO and how much as CO2?
putridp said:
A bonfire releases CO2 that would be released anyway when it rots. Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 that would otherwise remain locked deep underground. Therefore, bonfire = carbon neutral.
But is wasn't always locked in the ground, it used to be in the atmosphere, before the trees breathed it in, so by burning it your just returning it to where it came from...The largest greenhouse gas by volume..... by far... is water vapour.
Any change in the water vapour % will have MUCH bigger impact than any change in the co2 %
So I propose a new tax on making a cup of tea. Those nasty kettles boiling off all that water vapour.... I mean come on people.... if you keep making cups of tea, you are going to destroy the universe!!!!
Any change in the water vapour % will have MUCH bigger impact than any change in the co2 %
So I propose a new tax on making a cup of tea. Those nasty kettles boiling off all that water vapour.... I mean come on people.... if you keep making cups of tea, you are going to destroy the universe!!!!
A8VIP said:
putridp said:
A bonfire releases CO2 that would be released anyway when it rots. Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 that would otherwise remain locked deep underground. Therefore, bonfire = carbon neutral.
But is wasn't always locked in the ground, it used to be in the atmosphere, before the trees breathed it in, so by burning it your just returning it to where it came from...Whether this is actually important is impossible to say. The global climate is chaotic. Small changes in CO2 now may cause huge effects down the line, or it may not make any difference at all. It's simply impossible to predict.
For this reason I don't think changing fossil fuel usage from a CO2 release point of view is worthwhile at all. However, to change the subject slightly, the expontentially increasing global fossil fuel usage in the face of a finite resource will have catastrophic effects on society at some point in the future.
putridp said:
A8VIP said:
putridp said:
A bonfire releases CO2 that would be released anyway when it rots. Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 that would otherwise remain locked deep underground. Therefore, bonfire = carbon neutral.
But is wasn't always locked in the ground, it used to be in the atmosphere, before the trees breathed it in, so by burning it your just returning it to where it came from...Whether this is actually important is impossible to say. The global climate is chaotic. Small changes in CO2 now may cause huge effects down the line, or it may not make any difference at all. It's simply impossible to predict.
For this reason I don't think changing fossil fuel usage from a CO2 release point of view is worthwhile at all. However, to change the subject slightly, the expontentially increasing global fossil fuel usage in the face of a finite resource will have catastrophic effects on society at some point in the future.
CO2 is a fools mantra
putridp said:
A8VIP said:
putridp said:
A bonfire releases CO2 that would be released anyway when it rots. Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 that would otherwise remain locked deep underground. Therefore, bonfire = carbon neutral.
But is wasn't always locked in the ground, it used to be in the atmosphere, before the trees breathed it in, so by burning it your just returning it to where it came from...Burning a carbon source which has been buried deep in the earth for hundreds of thousands of years results in a net gain of CO2 in the atmosphere. Burning a tree does not.
As for CO vs CO2. If the bonfire was in a well ventilated area there shouldn't be an awful lot of CO produced as there should be enough oxygen around for complete combustion.
mondeoman said:
Its the SUN stooopid......
Suckered eh? 
That pile of nonsense has been discredited. Earth - the climate wars, if you want a handy source.
Skyrat said:
putridp said:
A8VIP said:
putridp said:
A bonfire releases CO2 that would be released anyway when it rots. Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 that would otherwise remain locked deep underground. Therefore, bonfire = carbon neutral.
But is wasn't always locked in the ground, it used to be in the atmosphere, before the trees breathed it in, so by burning it your just returning it to where it came from...Burning a carbon source which has been buried deep in the earth for hundreds of thousands of years results in a net gain of CO2 in the atmosphere. Burning a tree does not.
As for CO vs CO2. If the bonfire was in a well ventilated area there shouldn't be an awful lot of CO produced as there should be enough oxygen around for complete combustion.
mondeoman said:
Its the SUN stooopid......
Suckered eh? That pile of nonsense has been discredited. Earth - the climate wars, if you want a handy source.
esselte said:
Skyrat said:
putridp said:
A8VIP said:
putridp said:
A bonfire releases CO2 that would be released anyway when it rots. Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 that would otherwise remain locked deep underground. Therefore, bonfire = carbon neutral.
But is wasn't always locked in the ground, it used to be in the atmosphere, before the trees breathed it in, so by burning it your just returning it to where it came from...Burning a carbon source which has been buried deep in the earth for hundreds of thousands of years results in a net gain of CO2 in the atmosphere. Burning a tree does not.
As for CO vs CO2. If the bonfire was in a well ventilated area there shouldn't be an awful lot of CO produced as there should be enough oxygen around for complete combustion.
mondeoman said:
Its the SUN stooopid......
Suckered eh? That pile of nonsense has been discredited. Earth - the climate wars, if you want a handy source.
As for the other lot, there is a massive amount of evidence supporting the theory that CO2 levels are responsible for influencing the planet's climate. Is it incontrovertible proof? Of course not. But you could also take the view that evolution is just a theory too. However, it's a theory backed up with a mountain of evidence so large that it's now considered by the vast majority of scientists as a fact. I'll accept the evidence on climate change that is widely available to all, thank you very much, and not the half-baked arguments of a few hair-brained folk with stories of sun spots, cosmic rays, water vapour, medieval warm periods and other dodgy science - all of which I've seen discredited.
Skyrat said:
esselte said:
Skyrat said:
putridp said:
A8VIP said:
putridp said:
A bonfire releases CO2 that would be released anyway when it rots. Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 that would otherwise remain locked deep underground. Therefore, bonfire = carbon neutral.
But is wasn't always locked in the ground, it used to be in the atmosphere, before the trees breathed it in, so by burning it your just returning it to where it came from...Burning a carbon source which has been buried deep in the earth for hundreds of thousands of years results in a net gain of CO2 in the atmosphere. Burning a tree does not.
As for CO vs CO2. If the bonfire was in a well ventilated area there shouldn't be an awful lot of CO produced as there should be enough oxygen around for complete combustion.
mondeoman said:
Its the SUN stooopid......
Suckered eh? That pile of nonsense has been discredited. Earth - the climate wars, if you want a handy source.
As for the other lot, there is a massive amount of evidence supporting the theory that CO2 levels are responsible for influencing the planet's climate. Is it incontrovertible proof? Of course not. But you could also take the view that evolution is just a theory too. However, it's a theory backed up with a mountain of evidence so large that it's now considered by the vast majority of scientists as a fact. I'll accept the evidence on climate change that is widely available to all, thank you very much, and not the half-baked arguments of a few hair-brained folk with stories of sun spots, cosmic rays, water vapour, medieval warm periods and other dodgy science - all of which I've seen discredited.
Skyrat said:
esselte said:
Skyrat said:
putridp said:
A8VIP said:
putridp said:
A bonfire releases CO2 that would be released anyway when it rots. Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 that would otherwise remain locked deep underground. Therefore, bonfire = carbon neutral.
But is wasn't always locked in the ground, it used to be in the atmosphere, before the trees breathed it in, so by burning it your just returning it to where it came from...Burning a carbon source which has been buried deep in the earth for hundreds of thousands of years results in a net gain of CO2 in the atmosphere. Burning a tree does not.
As for CO vs CO2. If the bonfire was in a well ventilated area there shouldn't be an awful lot of CO produced as there should be enough oxygen around for complete combustion.
mondeoman said:
Its the SUN stooopid......
Suckered eh? That pile of nonsense has been discredited. Earth - the climate wars, if you want a handy source.
As for the other lot, there is a massive amount of evidence supporting the theory that CO2 levels are responsible for influencing the planet's climate. Is it incontrovertible proof? Of course not. But you could also take the view that evolution is just a theory too. However, it's a theory backed up with a mountain of evidence so large that it's now considered by the vast majority of scientists as a fact. I'll accept the evidence on climate change that is widely available to all, thank you very much, and not the half-baked arguments of a few hair-brained folk with stories of sun spots, cosmic rays, water vapour, medieval warm periods and other dodgy science - all of which I've seen discredited.
esselte said:
All this from someone who quotes a tv program as a scientific source....
I'm with the "it's the Sun" argument - this planet has been having temperature cycles during it's history that make our recent experience look like a little bit of cloud on a summer's day - the Antarctic used to be rainforest, the North Sea was frozen over at one point, and half of the USA was at another point underwater. And all of that without ANY human intervention, and with CO2 levels much lower than we currently have.
So it's nothing but hubris to suggest that climate change is all down to humanity. Pig-ignorant and dangerous hubris at that, IMHO...
Skyrat said:
I'll accept the evidence on climate change that is widely available to all, thank you very much, and not the half-baked arguments of a few hair-brained folk with stories of sun spots, cosmic rays, water vapour, medieval warm periods and other dodgy science - all of which I've seen discredited.
hahahahaha omg.... when science fact isn't enough ... then go ahead and believe the tax greedy governments.The main problem you have is that the 'evidence' that is widely available to all.... is government biassed and mainly manufactured to suit the views of the people providing the research grants etc.
The basic fact that underpins ALL of the anti-MMGW view is that CO2 levels in the atmosphere account for 0.03%.
And 14% of that 0.03% of CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels.
(http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html)<--read the 'discussion' section.
Therefore 0.0042% of the atmosphere is 'affected' by humans.
Now, this tiny percentage is not enough to have ANY CAUSE AFFECT on global temperatures..... this science fact has been around for many many years.
There are many scientists who have stated that, we as humans, could not affect global warming even if we tried to.
0.0042% is such a small figure that the biosphere couter acts this with soooo much ease. More CO2 means that the biosphere has a more 'friendly' environment... things like sea plancton and plants on land etc. ... they prosper in a more CO2 rich environment. But with only a 0.0042% increase... this is lapped up before it can even be properly measured.
As for the main greenhouse gas in the atmosphere take a look at this website:
http://www.applet-magic.com/atmosphere0.htm
(read H2O as being water vapour)
These are simple graphs, but they show graphically the difference in magnitude between the different compounds.
But ok... you will probably ignore all this because the underlying science fact is not quoted by the governments.... so therefore in your view everything is ok.
Skyrat said:
On what? Burning wood? Yeah, pretty much. Most of us learnt about the carbon cycle in the most basic science class in school.
So deforestation of ancient trees (you know trees can live a very long time don't you? ) is only releasing the CO2 that would be released anyway? Methinks that kind of thinking is a little strange.Skyrat said:
As for the other lot, there is a massive amount of evidence supporting the theory that CO2 levels are responsible for influencing the planet's climate.
No there isn't.Jinx_previously said:
Man-emitted, carbon dioxide forced, climate change just doesn't have the supporting evidence to be anything more than a fly by night doomsayer theory. It reminds me of the underpant gnomes from Southpark (first collect the underpants then something something then profit) .
Ludo has indicated using the balance of mass argument that more CO2 is being emitted than the current known processes of the Carbon cycle can "recycle" - ergo man is increasing the minute CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Experiments from the early part of the last century indicated the the carbon dioxide molecule can act as a GHG in controlled conditions.
This has led to the logical fallacy that both these "facts" prove MMCC.
The underlying "belief" that supports the MMCC theory is that nature is in a "delicate" balance. This mixed with a common total misunderstanding of chaos theory (one sweep of the wings of a butterfly causes tornadoes) sets the stage for the anti-homosapian rhetoric that always gushes forth from those that believe "man" is separate and somehow lower than "nature" . This then taps into the collective guilt embedded within the "western" champagne socialist conscience (taught in schools since the 70's - ask yourself why you believe in MMCC when so far there is no concrete evidence? ) and you get the situation we have today.
As any proponent of Darwin or Dawkin knows - there is no delicate balance in nature. Delicate balances can only exist in closed systems (game theory) and are the least likely outcome (ergo not going to happen in evolutionary situations) . The earth has evolved this far. Therefore there is no delicate balance to worry about ergo MMCC is a logical fallacy.
QED
Ludo has indicated using the balance of mass argument that more CO2 is being emitted than the current known processes of the Carbon cycle can "recycle" - ergo man is increasing the minute CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Experiments from the early part of the last century indicated the the carbon dioxide molecule can act as a GHG in controlled conditions.
This has led to the logical fallacy that both these "facts" prove MMCC.
The underlying "belief" that supports the MMCC theory is that nature is in a "delicate" balance. This mixed with a common total misunderstanding of chaos theory (one sweep of the wings of a butterfly causes tornadoes) sets the stage for the anti-homosapian rhetoric that always gushes forth from those that believe "man" is separate and somehow lower than "nature" . This then taps into the collective guilt embedded within the "western" champagne socialist conscience (taught in schools since the 70's - ask yourself why you believe in MMCC when so far there is no concrete evidence? ) and you get the situation we have today.
As any proponent of Darwin or Dawkin knows - there is no delicate balance in nature. Delicate balances can only exist in closed systems (game theory) and are the least likely outcome (ergo not going to happen in evolutionary situations) . The earth has evolved this far. Therefore there is no delicate balance to worry about ergo MMCC is a logical fallacy.
QED
Skyrat said:
Is it incontrovertible proof? Of course not. But you could also take the view that evolution is just a theory too. However, it's a theory backed up with a mountain of evidence so large that it's now considered by the vast majority of scientists as a fact.
See above - evolution does not support CO2 based MMCC.Skyrat said:
I'll accept the evidence on climate change that is widely available to all, thank you very much, and not the half-baked arguments of a few hair-brained folk with stories of sun spots, cosmic rays, water vapour, medieval warm periods and other dodgy science - all of which I've seen discredited.
Wizard's first rule. Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff