Global Warming/Climate Change 2

[sargeant]

Thanks for making me smile steve

Actually it's growing at a decreasing rate

It IS still growing and the last i read the estimate was 12-15 billion by 2025 BUT that is an estimate

If as I do believe the population is already past the safe level and the numbers and increase since 1850 the industrial revolution have already caused enough damage to cause alarm at its best then ANY increase is too much
Increasing food prices are the canary in the mine IMHO

I have noted to you already that i am not a solar devotee for the reflected and then refracted heat issue

Yes i agree that science and innovation may help with CO2 but it will not do jack squat to reduce or stop urbanisation or deforestation which i firmly believe are the main offenders

As there is zero nana zilch debate going on about urbanisation or deforestation it seems to me all that is happening is like discussing what makeup will cover up the spots so the smallpox can be ignored

[MrPlum]

a multi-model ensemble of anthropogenically-forced simulations displays many 10-year periods with little warming.

More making-the-science-fit-the-policy?

[sargeant]

More making-the-science-fit-the-policy?

SIMULATIONS are not science MR P they are at best an educated guess

BUT they are infinitely superior to unresearched CT Alex Jones soundbites though

[STEVE G]

I have noted to you already that i am not a solar devotee for the reflected and then refracted heat issue

Two points on that Sarge. The first is that the ability of a solar panel to reflect heat, it's albedo, is not often significantly different to the roof that it's covering and another is that at present fossil fuel power plants are only about 30-40% efficient and generate huge amounts of waste heat that no one seems to care about.

[sargeant]

Totally agree steve however population growth means more roofs
and i just believe its reflected/refracted heat that is a major problem plus less trees to cool the planet and soak up CO2
I also believe we have too many roofs roads and factories and shops already and it is that which is the major problem

THE ONLY reason for more roofs more solar and less trees is population

Would a cut in population by say 10% cut urbanisation CO2 emmissions and leave more room for planting trees
if your answer is yes then like me you will agree depopulation is the answer
however when you try to see a way to cut the population there just isnt one that would even vaguely stand a chance of succeeding

a conundrum methinks

[STEVE G]

Would a cut in population by say 10% cut urbanisation CO2 emmissions and leave more room for planting trees
if your answer is yes then like me you will agree depopulation is the answer
however when you try to see a way to cut the population there just isnt one that would even vaguely stand a chance of succeeding

When it comes to global warming, it doesn't matter how large or small the population is as long as it's consuming fossil fuels. The process was in effect 100 years ago when the population was far smaller. If it relies on renewables the population would have no effect on however large it was. (Obviously it would struggle to feed itself, but that is another topic entirely.)

[sargeant]

When it comes to global warming, it doesn't matter how large or small the population is as long as it's consuming fossil fuels. The process was in effect 100 years ago when the population was far smaller.

Of course it matters however large or small the population numbers are they have a huge effect both ways beneficially and detrimentaly

1.-100 years ago was 50 years into the industrial revolution then! but the number of houses were way way lower to say nothing about zero roads and cars. to say the growth in population since then has minimal effect is IMHO laughable.
Amost as laughable as the sceptics talking about climate changes pre industrial rev

If it relies on renewables the population would have no effect on however large it was.

of course it would still have an effect as i have said more urbanisation more deforestation screams loudly it would

It seems to me that you have your shirt riding on the one legged horse called solarCO2 in the derby

i agree wholeheartedly reduce CO2 i am fully behind you right up until you say raise carbon taxes and it will go away then i vote with MRP

(Obviously it would struggle to feed itself, but that is another topic entirely.)

I dont think it is another topic entirely at all GW and CC are going to cut food production to say nothing about we can hardly feed the whole planet now let alone another odd billion or 3

depopulation is a win win win solution to me

[STEVE G]

of course it would still have an effect as i have said more urbanisation more deforestation screams loudly....

It certainly does if we carry on as we are but it is a surmountable problem. We could, for instance, incorporate such things as vertical farming in cities to offset deforestation and feed people as well.
I agree reducing the population would reduce the problem but surely the application of technology would be better than some sort of wholesale slaughter!

[sargeant]

I agree reducing the population would reduce the problem quote]

thankyou for agreeing

but surely the application of technology would be better than some sort of wholesale slaughter![/

I totally concur steve

Here is the problem and sorry if i am shouting NO BUGGER IS TALKING ABOUT IT

all that is happening is CO2 GW CC believers and CO2 GW CC septics are screaming @ each other did didnt did didnt did didnt did didnt did didnt did didnt

All that is doing is letting the lying greedy and corrupt polititions to come up with the ludicrous BS that taxing us all a whole heap more will make it go away
that avoidance of the real issues WILL lead to quoting your correct analysis

some sort of wholesale slaughter![/

[H2ODunc]

I read an article in one of the UK papers that stated that scientists had discovered that by looking at tree rings the temperature during the Roman occupation of the UK was far higher than now and the world has actually been cooling since then. Pretty much makes a mockery of the eco, Green lunatics blaming it all on co2 now doesn't it ?
It is the biggest scam in the history of the world and people will look back at this period in time and wonder just how so many people could be so stupid !
It is all about taxation and control and that is it.
The biggest warming gas is water vapour but you can't tax that now can you. DAMN !
The next that is around 24 times worse than co2 and accounts for more so called warming is Methane as in cows and other animals farting but they can't tax that now can they DAMN !
Then someone came up woth co2 and it served all the right purposes. They could program the computer simulations to show it was all down to co2, they can blame it on man. they can then tax the crap out of making it and they can also control what you can and cannot do
PERFECT IN EVERY WAY.
The only problem was the FACTS
But hey the facts have never bothered these people
It isn't science but rather it is now quasi religious !

[STEVE G]

Even ExxonMobil think climate change is a problem:

"Rising greenhouse-gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems. Since most of these emissions are energy-related, any integrated approach to meeting the world’s growing energy needs over the coming decades must incorporate strategies to address the risk of climate change."
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/saf ... _mgmt.aspx

[sargeant]

H2o dunc

upfront i agree the scam is taxes and i am dead set agin them because the only people who will pay them are the poor, the ones least able to afford it because the rich will just pass it down or get loopholes to not pay it at all

However

that stated that scientists had discovered that by looking at tree rings the temperature during the Roman occupation of the UK was far higher than now and the world has actually been cooling since

That uk newspaper had obviously not researched anything or checked out the statement
Malankovic theory says it should now be getting warmer for one

secondly unless chariots had 2 stroke/4 stroke /diesel engines steel plants and power stations as i posted before it is immaterial

its Almost as laughable as the sceptics talking about climate changes pre industrial rev

The biggest warming gas is water vapour but you can't tax that now can you. DAMN !

No that is correct and the scientists cannot measure how or if there is an increase except maybe the record floods give a clue as to how much rain this water vapour produces, been a slack handfull of record floods over the last decade
Now this is where i delve into simple logic. Clouds/water vapour are really steam from the oceans
Irgo if the earth is getting warmer more clouds more water vapour more water vapour more global warming
Still with me i hope so methinks more clouds more water vapour = more rain= record floods

now put that in REVERSE and we arrive at NO record floods (but we all know they are getting quite regular nowadays) which means it isnt cooling

now tell me that doesnt make sense and not a word about CO2 funny old world innit

[STEVE G]

now tell me that doesnt make sense and not a word about CO2 funny old world innit

The problem is that C02 absorbs longwave radiation at overlapping but different frequency bands to water vapour. This has been known since at least 1952.

[sargeant]

Steve i am not disputing CO2 as a cause
But i am using the water vapour argument to show The earth is definitely warming
I will get to methane later but its funny how it is all blamed on animals and never any talk of human waste gases of which in a decade or three there will be an extra 3 or 4 billion extra gas orifices making deposits to GW
to say nothing of the stink

[STEVE G]

I will get to methane later but its funny how it is all blamed on animals and never any talk of human waste gases of which in a decade or three there will be an extra 3 or 4 billion extra gas orifices making deposits to GW
to say nothing of the stink

The thing with waste gases, from any type of animal life, is that they're all part of the carbon cycle. The carbon in them, Methane or C02, comes either directly or indirectly from plantlife that absorbs C02 through photosynthesis, so things stay more or less balanced.
The problem with fossil fuels is that they're releasing carbon that has been locked up for millions of years and comes from a time when the atmosphere was different to what it is now, so it's only part of the carbon cycle on a very long time scale which includes periods in which the earth wouldn't sustain human life as we know it.
Basically it is this that is upsetting a delicate balance that has maintained the climate that we know.