Re: Sharp rise in CO2 levels recorded.

In message <%%0Sf.7883$GN1.1261@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sewer Rat <tar.rewesREVERSE_IT@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes

"Roadhog" <muttleycruise@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1142385849.717892.68060@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

If that's the best argument you can come up with, I suspect that you
really don't know very much about the subject at all.

What do you expect me to know, kiddo? You don't know me, my background -
anything.

You protest too much. You're perfectly happy to make wild assumptions about others, so why squeal when others do it to you?

>You are, after all, very quick to resort to name-calling and very slow to
come up with
anything concrete to back up your position.

LOL!!! You get all upset 'cos someone takes the piss out of you for spouting
off like some gimp pretending to understand what he's talking about? My,
my..........how many keyboards do you get through per week then?

Not upset at all, mildly amused actually. It's only Usenet when all is said and done. :)

You are the one who expects me to alter my lifestyle simply because you
have done so, the burden of proof is on you.

Utter bollocks

I haven't told you how to live your lifestyle, yet you expect me to change mine. The least you can do is provide convincing reasons for me to do so. Saying "utter bollocks" is sooooooooo convincing, I'll sell the car tomorrow.

*rolls eyes*

- let me quote you:

"As if reducing the small amount of extra CO2 generated by human activity
will make the blindest bit of difference to what are mostly natural
fluctuations in climate anyway."

So, you reckon that something like the release of 6,500,000,000 tonnes of
CO2 per year (2000 figure) into the atmosphere is an insignificant amount -
interesting, most interesting. That's a rise of 31% over pre- Industrial
Revolution figures, which we know from the analysis of ice cores had
remained fairly stable for the preceding 10,000 years. That is no small
amount.

Considering that there are 3,000,000,000,000 tonnes of atmospheric CO2, of course it's insignificant.

Remind me, what is the most important greenhouse 'gas'?

Look carefully at the change in temperatures over the past 2000 years - from
proxy temperature studies of ice cores, tree-ring widths, we can clearly see
a rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution which correlates
pretty closely with the rise in CO2 emissions.

Correlation is not causation. Come on, you know better than that. And if you've read up on the subject besides Mann, you must know that rises in CO2 have followed the temperature rises, not preceded them.

"It's about as effectual as King Canute commanding the tide to turn back."

We probably can't *reverse* the damage done any time soon - think
generations before we stand a reasonable chance of doing that.

OK.

We should be
thinking about *minimising* the impact we are having on the climate. Of
course the oil will run out eventually, ably assisted by the greed of the
likes of you. Quite what we do then is another worry, but another that's
another one that clearly doesn't trouble you either.

So come on, put your cards on the table. Tell me, exactly what effect
do you think the Kyoto protocol will have on global temperatures if
implemented in full.

It likely doesn't go far enough. It will not halt the rise in temperature,
that much is clear.

By how much will the benefits brought by the Kyoto protocol outweigh
the costs, if at all? I'm looking for a quantification here, not empty
rhetoric.

What do you mean by "benefits"? As for costs, well you really should be
thinking about the side effects of global warming - flooding, droughts,
hurricanes and so on. The "cost" in human life of not addressing the issue
is of far greater importance,but if you fancy Googling, try looking up how
much Hurricane Katrina cost Uncle Sam. I have to deal with flooding issues
every day of my working life, and we're having to reconsider what we think
of as an "unusual" rain event for modelling drainage networks. Global
warming at the sharp end.

Bjorn Lomborg calculated that, even if the doomsday forecasters' worst scenario came to pass, we would still be far better off spending the money on preparing for the effects of any future global warming than squandering huge chunks of GDP on futile political gestures. He was, of course, vilified and ostracised for this.

But to use the example you gave, the cost of building flood defences capable of withstanding a direct hit on New Orleans from a Cat 5 hurricane was far, far less than the damage as a consequence of *not* building them, wasn't it?

By your own admission, Kyoto won't make any significant difference even if the IPCC's computer models are correct. So why waste precious time and money on it when there are flooding defences and drainage networks to be built?

When Greenland was discovered, it was so called because of its
vegetation, i.e it was not under a thick layer of ice as much of it is
today. How do you account for this when, according to the article
posted by the OP, CO2 is allegedly at a higher level today than at any
time since man first walked the earth?

Do you mind if I do a Doug here?

The name Greenland comes from those Scandinavian settlers. In the Norse
sagas, it is said that Eiríkur Rauði (Erik the Red) was exiled from Iceland
for murder. He, along with his extended family and slaves, set out in ships
to find the land that was rumored to be to the northwest. After settling
there, he named the land Grænland ("Greenland") in order to attract more
people to settle there.

Copied and pasted from Wikipedia - will that do you?

Yes, I'm familiar with the passage. I also remember that the very next sentence was: "The fjords of the Southern part of the island were lush and had a warmer climate at that time, possibly due to what was called the Medieval Warm Period."

I'm perfectly aware that most of Greenland was still covered in ice <g>, that was added at the last minute as an (ill-advised) trap, although at least it caught Duhg out. Leaving that silliness aside, Greenland was warmer than it is today. Or are you one of these people who believe the MWP never happened?

>How do you also account for the fact that the Romans had vineyards in
Northumberland?

Can't be bothered reading up on one oddity to satisfy what you think of as
some sort of mental sadism. I'll hazard a guess here and suggest the Gulf
stream may have been further northin Roman times.

I think that's enough to start off with. I look forward to your
well-researched replies and authoritative sources.

I can read as well as anyone, pal. The difference between us is in the way
we react to the information we take in.

Well, since your chosen nickname and various bits of info you've put in here suggest that you are an engineer, possibly working for the Environment Agency, I think I can respect your knowledge at the sharp end as you put it.

I still think we'd be better off employing more people like yourself building flood defences etc than rely on Duhg and his mates dragging us back to the stone age to 'save' the planet.

Oh, and stopping councils granting planning permission to build on flood plains might help too...


--
Roadhog
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Al Gore is going nuts!
    ... "Nearly every significant statement Gore makes regarding climate science and ... warmth and the ongoing rise in the air’s carbon dioxide (CO2) content. ... global warming. ...
    (soc.culture.polish)
  • OT:OT:OT:NO MS:NO HURT USA:While the neocons hatch another hate cartoon
    ... Global Warming: Passing the 'Tipping Point' ... Lovelock, put forward last month in The Independent, that climate change is ... The danger point we are now firmly on course for is a rise in global ... This was for the concentration of CO2 and other gases such as methane ...
    (alt.support.mult-sclerosis)
  • Re: Global Warming >
    ... suggests that the linear change is natural change. ... The rise in CO2 shows strong averaged ... This is the Big Problem with the Global Warming hysteria. ...
    (rec.aviation.piloting)
  • Re: A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LIFE
    ... The interesting thing is that the ice data shows CO2 ... I have presented my evidence. ... AGW or global warming for that matter. ... It is well known that the rise in UK crime rate in the 1970s was ...
    (rec.audio.tubes)
  • Re: Whats Really Heating Up the Planet?
    ... "Carbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume," ... CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first ... said he doesn't even consider global warming among the Top 10 ...
    (soc.retirement)