Carbon emission control efforts put in perspective

**cowpoos** · 28th May 2010, 21:12

Originally Posted by rainman

But never let the facts get in the way of a good ideological rant, eh?

Thats pretty dam hypocritical coming from someone who believes in man made global warming...lol!!!

I suppose you will plead ignorant of the IPCC email saga??

**Scuba_Steve** · 28th May 2010, 21:13

Originally Posted by rainman

But never let the facts get in the way of a good ideological rant, eh?

Dont worry Climagate never have

**flyingcrocodile46** · 28th May 2010, 21:23

Originally Posted by rainman

Ah, now I get what you're on about. So you are rejoicing in the fact that carbon emission reductions have been (relatively) ineffective

Not rejoicing so much as rolling my eyes out loud at the realisation of how minuscule our questionable efforts are.

Originally Posted by rainman

Are you mad?

Unquestionably

**rainman** · 28th May 2010, 21:34

Originally Posted by flyingcrocodile46

Not rejoicing so much as rolling my eyes out loud at the realisation of how minuscule our questionable efforts are.

So we should do more?

OK.

**JimO** · 28th May 2010, 21:41

what difference will it make

**bogan** · 28th May 2010, 21:45

Originally Posted by rainman

Good question. Surely he wouldn't use a model - they are those bad things scientists use to show we're in the shit, aren't they?

I don't care what he used, I'm just after the info to judge for myself whats going on.

**flyingcrocodile46** · 28th May 2010, 21:49

Originally Posted by rainman

So we should do more?

OK.

Yes in a perfect world, and No in the real world.

I don't want to make sacrifices if the results aren't going to make a significant and immediate impact. I'd sooner make a sacrifice to fund research into advancing the ultimate solution of addressing imbalances by way of clean technology and cleaning technology. (think International Rescue... LMAO)

**flyingcrocodile46** · 28th May 2010, 21:52

Originally Posted by JimO

what difference will it make

That's also (sort of) my point

Originally Posted by bogan

I don't care what he used, I'm just after the info to judge for myself whats going on.

Nag, nag, nag.

I made it up

Nah! I can't take credit for it.
Someone else made it all up

**bogan** · 28th May 2010, 21:55

Originally Posted by flyingcrocodile46

Nag, nag, nag.

I made it up

Nah! I can't take credit for it.
Someone else made it all up

so its all made up, and we just get to believe whatever we want cos there are no reliable facts out there? that about sums up your argument?

**flyingcrocodile46** · 28th May 2010, 22:01

Originally Posted by bogan

so its all made up, and we just get to believe whatever we want cos there are no reliable facts out there? that about sums up your argument?

It's not an argument. It's a theory (Ideology is fact-less). Some facts were added by Jantar and that autistic fella (you can trust facts from savants, they is clever peeps)

**Jantar** · 28th May 2010, 22:18

Originally Posted by JimO

what difference will it make

Around 0.0006 C by the end of the cetury.

**Jantar** · 28th May 2010, 22:25

Originally Posted by flyingcrocodile46

...Some facts were added by Jantar ....

I would like to claim credit for adding some facts, but even that data I gave is only an estimate. There is no reliable way of measuring emmissions, only concentrations. An estimate of emmission sources can be made by comparing atmospheric isotopes, but it is still only an estimate.

The amount of forcing (ie change of temperature for changes in concentration) can be calculated exactly as it's a logarithmic ratio, and that calculation shows that there will be very little temperature change for any further change in CO2. Where the current research is aimed at isn't the direct correllation but at the feedbacks. Again there is a lot of argument about the effect of these feedbacks. All we know for certain is that we don't know anything for ceratin.

**flyingcrocodile46** · 28th May 2010, 22:31

Originally Posted by Jantar

I would like to claim credit for adding some facts, but even that data I gave is only an estimate. There is no reliable way of measuring emmissions, only concentrations. An estimate of emmission sources can be made by comparing atmospheric isotopes, but it is still only an estimate.

The amount of forcing (ie change of temperature for changes in concentration) can be calculated exactly as it's a logarithmic ratio, and that calculation shows that there will be very little temperature change for any further change in CO2. Where the current research is aimed at isn't the direct correllation but at the feedbacks. Again there is a lot of argument about the effect of these feedbacks. All we know for certain is that we don't know anything for ceratin.

Lol. No point in asking if you can accurately estimate the ratios required to calculate the equivalent ecological damage resulting from the BP oil leak as compared to the volcano then is there.