06-03-2002 22:09									#61
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by rah But what is the percentage of manmade vs. produced by nature?

how would nature produce carbon dioxide in an amount only close to industrial output?

	06-03-2002 22:12									#62
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

That's why I asked the question, I don't know.
I'm assume your answer means, you don't either.

RAH

	06-03-2002 22:16									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

now what is that supposed to mean?

If you inhale a certain amount of air and then exhale it, the share of carbon dioxide has increased by only a small figure.

If you burn coal in a factory, you get tons of carbon dioxide.

The difference is vast, and even 6 billion human beings on Earth produce less carbon dioxide than a considerably low amount of factories or steel works must do.

	06-03-2002 22:18									#64
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ecthelion now what is that supposed to mean?

That you don't know exactly either, you're speculating. I'm not saying you're wrong, I would just like a more concrete answer.

	06-03-2002 22:42									#65
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Speculating about what?

The effect that I have just described is just about physics, you can't deny that.

And you can't deny that industries produce carbon dioxide to an extremely high extent, either.

It doesn't even matter whether nature produces more carbon dioxide (while it doesn't produce any considerable amount at all, where should it come from?), as long as we know that impure industries on low environmental standards produce an obscene amount of the stuff. If we decrease that CO2 output, we will decrease the effects of global warming. I don't see what some people are trying to deny and to argue about...

	06-03-2002 22:48									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Do you deny that volcanos add CO2 to the atmosphere?

Do you deny that the oceans absorb some of the CO2 produced?

I asked a question, that you don't have a concrete answer for.
I have not dissagreed with anything that you've said. (yet anyway)

I JUST ASKED A QUESTION, ALL I WAS EXPECTING WAS AN ANSWER NOT A FRICKING LECTURE.

Thank you,

If you don't know the exact answer, just say so, or go look it up. I didn't have a lot of success when I did, there seemed to be some quite contradictory evidence.

	06-03-2002 23:32									#67
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by rah Do you deny that volcanos add CO2 to the atmosphere? Do you deny that the oceans absorb some of the CO2 produced?

The question is not about how much is going in or out in nature, it is pretty much in equilibrium. CO₂ sinks = CO₂ sources. There are fluctuations but the CO₂ level remained within an upper and lower limit since the last ice age.

What we are doing with industrial output is increasing sources. There will of course be feedback, either negative or positive, but what is sure is that CO₂ levels will rise, as we have introduced a net CO₂ source.

	06-03-2002 23:32									#68
	Support Apolyton

There is no need to shout at me, I'm not your son.

The question you asked is irrelevant because it only matters what we can do to decrease global warming.

Can you make volcanos stop producing CO2?

	06-03-2002 23:39									#69
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by rah Do you deny that volcanos add CO2 to the atmosphere?

Volcanoes add CO2 in atmosphere, erosion adds CO2 in atmosphere (and seas).

But such CO2 emission, nature system was able to manage its balance.

Now we are both reducing CO2 bio-recycling systems (Forests and planctons mainly) and increasing the CO2 production.

If we continue to increase our production and destoy the bio-recyclers, we will enter in a vicious circle, if we have not.

Even ifwe are responsable of 5% or even 1% of the CO2 production raise, it could be sufficient to break the balance and throw us in a global warning or maybe in a Ice Age (why not ?).

	06-03-2002 23:49									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

From the June 2001 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report "Climate Change Science" that made news last year: "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes are also a reflection of natural variability."

Given the qualifications scientists have added to the assertions linking human activity to global warming in order to cover the uncertainties in the science, I fail to see how one can state categorically that human activity is responsible for causing air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.

	06-03-2002 23:59									#71
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc the qualifications scientists have added to the assertions linking human activity to global warming in order to cover the uncertainties in the science, I fail to see how one can state categorically that human activity is responsible for causing air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.

You do realise how picky scientists are when making those kinds of statements?

	06-03-2002 23:59									#72
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ecthelion If we decrease that CO2 output, we will decrease the effects of global warming. I don't see what some people are trying to deny and to argue about...

Effects on global warming. (not 100 % proven but the evidence seems to point that way so I'm inclined to believe it.)

I don't think everyone denies it (even though some argue about it just for the sake of arguing)

I'm just interested in the overall effect. You're very simplistic here. The US didn't sign the agreement so they're evil. (Ok, maybe not evil but it sure sounds that way)

Just because the US didn't sign, doesn't mean that nothing is being done. The epa car emissions legislation is in the headlines routinely. But it is prudent to look at the big picture. If you want to make a simple statement and claim that your arguement is right I'll do the same.

If I have the choice to heat my house using inefficient means that cause more pollution (because that's all I can afford) or let my family die due to exposure, it's a slam dunk choice.
Granted this is an extreme statement. But it can help to understand that everything isn't so black and white.

Check out this site.
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/em_cont.htm
If you see, CHINA has almost doubled it's CO2 emissions in the last 15 years. AND is quickly approaching the US. It took the US almost 50 years to double it's output. (BROAD GENERALIZATIONS) but it raises an issue. WHY whould the US sign a treaty that gives China a leg up?

Maybe there are other solutions. I think it's only prudent that every country judges how a treaty will impact it's population. And just because they don't sign it doesn't mean that they don't agree in principle, they just dissagree with the methods. If the US was doing absolutely nothing in that regard, I would have to agree with you, but we are doing something, (actually quite a few things) Things that are phased in to avoid economic disaster.
Why would the US sign a treaty that penalizes it more than any other signer? Of course you think it's a good deal, but don't expect us to agree. We'll try other methods, thank you.

I do agree that we're proably being too cautious, and that we should be moving forward more quickly. But the treaty was not the answer.

RAH

	07-03-2002 00:03									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ecthelion [points 1,2,3,4] Conclusion: The more carbone dioxide there is, the warmer the atmosphere gets. Carbone dioxide in the air made a high temperature and thereby life and evolution possible. But too much of it makes the atmosphere too warm. So global warming is caused by a high emission of CO2. And it is a given fact that the US' share of the global CO2 output is 25%. What else is there to deny I wonder....

The effect you describe (the direct effect from the increased CO2) isn't being disputed, but is only responsible for about 0.5 degrees of warming predicted for 2100, IIRC (somewhere in that order at least). Most of global warming is predicted to come from positive feedback effects such as increasing water vapor in the atmosphere. (IIRC 2/3 of projected warming is due to H2O)
This is the part that's in dispute. Those who deny global warming will be as much as predicted claim that the positive feedback effects are smaller and the negative feedback effects are larger.
If you think increased radiation from increased emissions of greenhouse gases causes a few degrees of warming DIRECTLY, you really shouldn't have an opinion on this.

To me the strongest argument against Kyoto is that it will do so little (it will stop only a very small fraction of global warming).
People then claim that Kyoto is only a first step; but the steps after that are certainly not going to be free.
Either there will be bearable economic costs for a CO2 reduction policy that achieves almost nothing (Kyoto), or there will be very large costs for a CO2 reduction that does significantly decrease global warming (or somewhere in between of course). You can't have it both ways. And this is assuming the IPCC predictions are right. Plus, there are things like the positive effects of CO2 on plant growth and avoiding/mitigating the next ice age.

"Kyoto is only a first step" is to me only an argument against it.

	07-03-2002 00:08									#74
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc From the June 2001 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report "Climate Change Science" that made news last year: "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes are also a reflection of natural variability." Given the qualifications scientists have added to the assertions linking human activity to global warming in order to cover the uncertainties in the science, I fail to see how one can state categorically that human activity is responsible for causing air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.

(0. I don't trust in an American report, since it is Americans that are accused to produce the biggest amount of CO2.)

1. When they say "It probably is man-made", they mean that it is probably man-made. "Not ruling out" that nature produces a decisive share doesn't mean you consider it more effective for CO2 production than man-made things.

2. Your last paragraph doesn't make any sense. As we have already tried to clarify: it doesn't matter how big the share of man-made CO2 emission is, as long as that is the only part of global warming that we can affect. Why should we not do our best to decrease global warming as long as we have the chance to? I think a bit of common sense would be a good sign of responsibility in this regard...

	07-03-2002 00:12									#75
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

By the way:

quote: If you inhale a certain amount of air and then exhale it, the share of carbon dioxide has increased by only a small figure. If you burn coal in a factory, you get tons of carbon dioxide.

IIRC termites produce several times more CO2 than industrial activity. However that isn't really relevant as the recent increase in CO2 levels is agreed to be due to humans.

Andz, am I correct in reading your posts as meaning: we should reduce CO2 emissions no matter how ineffective that would be?

	07-03-2002 00:21									#76
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Well rah you've got some nice points there

If I got it right, what annoys America so much is the fact China gets extra treatment because it's considered a third world nations. Apparently, those get bonuses in environmental treatment because they need growth. Now look at China, some statistics say they're world 2nd in GNP, so what the heck. And they sure are advanced enough to widely install environmental protection devices (like those things in plants that make SO2 react to CaSO4 ), so what the heck They could afford a big People's Project for Fuel Cells

Thing is, they know they're treated better as long as they press onto their lachrymal glands.

I understand Americans feel sh!t about that, but where's western responsibility?

Dr Oogkloot doesn't have any nice points

	07-03-2002 00:27									#77
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Dr.Oogkloot Andz, am I correct in reading your posts as meaning: we should reduce CO2 emissions no matter how ineffective that would be?

1. If "ineffective" means less prosperity for fat conservative reactionary capitalists on both sides of the pond, then yes.

2. I said we should try harder to decrease the amount of CO2 being vomitted into the air carelessly.

You can do stuff like CO2 + Ca/Ba(OH)2aq = Ca/BaCO3 + H2=, you know

	07-03-2002 00:37									#78
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Ecthelion Well rah you've got some nice points there If I got it right, what annoys America so much is the fact China gets extra treatment because it's considered a third world nations. Apparently, those get bonuses in environmental treatment because they need growth. Now look at China, some statistics say they're world 2nd in GNP, so what the heck. And they sure are advanced enough to widely install environmental protection devices (like those things in plants that make SO2 react to CaSO4 ), so what the heck They could afford a big People's Project for Fuel Cells Thing is, they know they're treated better as long as they press onto their lachrymal glands. I understand Americans feel sh!t about that, but where's western responsibility?

Almost, but not quite. The China was just one specific example.

That Third world country costs a lot of americans jobs through it's exports. Why should let the gap be widened.

The point is, most Americans probably agree that something should be done. We just didn't agree with your method. (It would have never passed through Congress) So we will do different things, things that will pass through congress. Please give us some credit for those things instead of assuming we're doing nothing just because we don't agree with your methods in this one specific case. I'd be willing to bet that The US has produced more prototype cars that use Batteries or natural gas than any other country.

THE treaty was flawed. (in our opinion)
Let the blind biased bashing continue.




RAH

	07-03-2002 00:43									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Thing is, we don't get a lot of information about WHAT you guys do. Apparently Bush has just published his own vision of climate protection. What did it contain? It was seemingly full of market-based ideas, but it didn't earn much attention over here...

	07-03-2002 00:49									#80
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Dr.Oogkloot Plus, there are things like the positive effects of CO2 on plant growth and avoiding/mitigating the next ice age.

Not sure, if global warning begins the nature will be unbalanced, oceans and atmospherics streams will change.

I'm not sure if our scientists could predict what really will happens then.

So with time, the climat could find a balance in a warmer state, but could change to an Ice age too ...

	07-03-2002 00:50									#81
	it's getting hoter and hoter... Inflate your Upload Space

british bananas anyone?

	07-03-2002 00:51									#82
	Remove this text

Ecthelion: I have lots of nice points, I just don't need them all at the same time

quote: Originally posted by Ecthelion 1. If "ineffective" means less prosperity for fat conservative reactionary capitalists on both sides of the pond, then yes.

I said "ineffective" not "expensive"
Am I correct in reading your posts as: we should reduce CO2 no matter how little warming that will prevent?
And am I correct in reading that last comment to mean that you think the only ones who would bear the costs of reducing CO2 are fat conservative reactionary capitalists? Or that you think it's inherently good for people who don't think like you to be less prosperous?

quote: 2. I said we should try harder to decrease the amount of CO2 being vomitted into the air carelessly.

I know - what does that have to do with anything I said?

quote: You can do stuff like CO2 + Ca/Ba(OH)2aq = Ca/BaCO3 + H2=, you know

Please explain.

BTW I just surfed into this one and thought it was rather funny:
http://www.strange-matter.com/li/li099.jpg

	07-03-2002 01:02									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Barium hydroxide as well as Calcium hydroxide are alcalic substances. When dissolved in water, they easily react with carbon dioxide to the corresponding carbonate and pure water... I misspelled the O, made it a = so it's H2O not H2=

Now if you make the emissions from plants etc pass a system with a high surface and water with one of those hydroxides dissolved in it, you could make a high share of the CO2 react with the stuff. And a solution of a carbonate doesn't make for global warming you know

	07-03-2002 01:03									#84
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Ecthelion Thing is, we don't get a lot of information about WHAT you guys do. Apparently Bush has just published his own vision of climate protection. What did it contain? It was seemingly full of market-based ideas, but it didn't earn much attention over here...

That's part of the problem. The negative is highly visible and the positive isn't. (no future bashing the positive )

Unfortunately Bush isn't the greenest of presidents.

But the green impact on the Government is not insignificant.

Note a recent article
WASHINGTON and ST. LOUIS (January 9, 2002 11:18 p.m. EST) - It's a vision that seems almost too good to be true: Electric cars that wouldn't ever need a plug-in recharge.

Yet such is the promise of fuel-cell technology. Proponents have long held that these futuristic sort-of-battery devices are the world's best hope for replacing the noisy, inefficient, dirty internal combustion engine.

The Bush administration, in fact, has decided that U.S. government support for the development of environmentally friendly vehicles should now focus much more on fuel-cell work. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham announced the shift yesterday during a speech at the auto show in Detroit.

In doing so, the administration has opted to back the green technology with the highest payoff - and perhaps the highest risk.

Fuel-cell cars are still a long way from commercial viability. A few years ago, electric vehicles were the subject of similar hype - and they're not exactly rivals of V-6 SUVs today. If nothing else, developing a network of refueling stations for hydrogen-based fuel-cell power units could take a decade or more.

"I see (fuel cells) as a long-term plan," says Richard DeBlasio, technical manager for distributed power at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo. "It will take years to develop the infrastructure."

Fuel cells were first developed to provide a source of power for the satellites and manned capsules of the U.S. space program.

The concept behind fuel cells is a powerful one: Instead of burning carbon in the form of trees and coal and oil, as the world has done since before the Industrial Revolution, it could consume hydrogen, the most common element in the universe.

********

There were some people that were upset with this, thinking that it would reduce support for other alternatives that could be more widely used much more quickly.

Granted the greens don't run the government, but their influence is far from insignificant. If you're going to something against them, it must be sugarcoated considerable.

RAH

	07-03-2002 01:11									#85
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Fuel cells are cool I must admit.

It's not like they don't need any refueling, just no "recharging" as opposed to old-fashioned electric vehicles. They do need a source of fuel though, namely methane, methanole or pure hydrogen, depending on the model. most efficient would be methane.

	07-03-2002 01:13									#86
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ecthelion Why should we not do our best to decrease global warming as long as we have the chance to? I think a bit of common sense would be a good sign of responsibility in this regard...

Because the biggest Greenhouse gas in terms of impact on the over all impact on the enviroment is H2O. CO2 accounts for less than 10% of the green house effect and its ability to hold heat is quite limited.

	07-03-2002 03:16									#87
	Support Apolyton

quote: its ability to hold heat is quite limited.

What's your point?

How is that supposed to effect its "greenhouse" ability?

	07-03-2002 08:15									#88
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by rah Actually the tax on the gas might work out better. Your way doesn't take into effect a poorly maintained more efficient rated vehicle which might polute more than a higher rated one. Or in my case, a higher rated vehicle that is driven considerably less. BUT, the big problem still remaining would be the Commerical trucks. An increase in the tax would ripple through the entire economy if shipping costs were to increase to cover the expense. We've seen this tank the economy in the past. It's all the little details that make this issue very complex, with no simple answer.

Now the devil is in the details I dunno how factors like that would be worked out, haven't given it a lot of thought.

Ah, trucks, a different matter I suppose. Now the taxes on those things are damn high anyway in this country, over £1000 perhaps many thousands of pounds, but they would have to have a special status of course.

	07-03-2002 14:46									#89
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by rah WHY whould the US sign a treaty that gives China a leg up? Why would the US sign a treaty that penalizes it more than any other signer?

First, China is only exempt from the Kyoto targets, not from the entire process. As Kyoto is only designed as a first step, the idea is that industrialised nations go ahead and reduce 3rd world emissions by things like tech transfer.

The second point... that whining line has been carried through US media and politics, but it's still wrong. The US creates a lot more emissions than western europe, whether you count it per unit of GDP or per capita. As Kyoto mandates a reduction from existing levels, the US would be allowed to maintain those higher levels. Your waste is getting a seal of approval by Kyoto, and the Cronies that run the show ***** about being discriminated. If it weren't so bizarre it would be funny.

My main objection agaist Kyoto would be that it is a) full of holes, and b) would have given the US excessive preferential treatment.

	07-03-2002 15:00									#90
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: british bananas anyone?

More likely for a British glacier first. Remember, if the Earth heats up enough, then the Gulf Stream is likely to shut down, leaving the warm water from the Caribbean not to flow to Europe, and making the Mediterranean as nice and toasty as Chicago .

And I'm opposed to Kyoto. The US should reduce emissions, but not be beholding to a treaty that has forced targets. We should make targets ourselves, but perhaps we need some legroom for not meeting them (like extraneous circumstances like recession pop up)