Global Warming and what you can do to against it

?

.

Guest
Dear All,
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the
planet. It will also affect us;
rising sea levels, dwindling water supplies, mass deaths due to heat
waves, stoppage of the gulfstream, which
brings milder climate to north of Europe, super hurricanes, less food
due to droughts are some of the effects.
As you also know global warming is produced due to CO2 emissions
coming from burning of fossil fuels. So what
can every single person do to reduce global warming ?


1) Insulation: Do you know that you can save 50% of heating energy
(and money) by insulation ? Especially in
the times the financial crisis, you can make the insulation cheaper
and save the money when oil, natural gas and
coal prices are higher due to higher demand. What needs to be
insulated ? Firstly the Roof, since warmer air
goes up, then the windows (tripple glass or at least dual glass and
shutters for additional insulation at night,
and in summer time), then the outer walls. Also small cracks, leaks in
weatherstrips etc should be eliminated.
An infrared inspection of your house for heat losses would be the best
way to find out what else can be done.
A wintergarden will help heating your house additionally in winter
time.

2) Using rechargable batteries instead of alkaline batteries, and
charge them during less demand ours like at night
will also save a lot of energy and money.

3) Lightning; the use of Compact fluorescent lamps instead of
traditioanl light bulbs will save 80% of energy, the
use of very new LED lamps will save even more.

4) Buying local. Most of the energy is spent for transportation of
imported goods, especially food. By buying local
made food you not only save a lot of energy, but also create more jobs
at home.

5) Heating; there are several way to save energy and money by changing
the heating method; you can use the free heat
of the nature by adding a solar thermal equipment to heat the water
for taking showers and also to heat your home.
Additionally you can use a heating pump, which funtions like a reverse
fridge; it takes the heat of the outside and
transfers it to your home. You use much much less energy to do this
(electricity to pump a liquid).

6) Your car; by buying a hybrid car you save 30% of fuel, by
converting your car to CNG (compressed natural gas) you
can save a lot of CO2, since CNG has much less carbon but more
hydrogen, which will result in water (CH4 instead of
C8H18). CNG will also result in much more energy output per mass. The
conversion is not very expensive. It is totally
save, since the storage has to resist a certain pressure.
Of course there are also other smaller things you have to consider:
- Each 60 pounds increases fuel consumption by 10%.
- Aggressive driving (speeding, rapid acceleration, and hard braking)
wastes gas. It can lower your highway gas mileage
33% and city mileage 5%.
- Drive at lowest and constant rpms; 2000 rpm are enough; you can save
up to 30%. Even a Porsche can be driven at the
4th gear at 20 mph and at the 6th gear at 50 mph with 2.5 times less
fuel consumption.
- Avoid high speeds. Driving 75 mph, rather than 65 mph, could cut
your fuel economy by 15%.
- Use air conditioning only when necessary
- Keep tires properly inflated and aligned to improve your gasoline
mileage by around 3.3%.
- Replace clogged air filters to improve gas mileage by as much as 10%
and protect your engine
- Combine errands into one trip. Several short trips, each one taken
from a cold start, can use twice as much fuel as
one trip covering the same distance when the engine is warm. Do not
forget that in the first mile your car uses 8
times more fuel, in the second mile 4 times and only after the
fourth mile it becomes normal

7) Buying A++ or A+++ equipments. The extra money you pay for this
will be back in 1-2 years. It will save a lot of CO2.

8) Try to save also energy at your job; you can do it by insulation,
more efficient processes, heat recovery, more
efficient pumps/engines, low temperature processses, material
saving, water savings, optimization, automatic turning
off of unnecessary energy using processes, control if some
processes are really necessary (the change of some
processes makes other processes sometimes unnecesarry on which
nobody has thought about).

9) Solar cells for your own home; at the moment solar cells are very
cheap since there is an overproduction. These cells
can operate a fridge for example.

Regards.
 
I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
 
"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:sfgbi51etn9223c56m1tegedksnc5r2b8f@4ax.com...
I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm reading at the
moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of the University of East
Anglia, it's not going to have any genuine effect anyway ... :)

Arfa
 
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3eoVm.34259$iW.13517@newsfe30.ams2...
"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:sfgbi51etn9223c56m1tegedksnc5r2b8f@4ax.com...
I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm reading at the
moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of the University of East
Anglia, it's not going to have any genuine effect anyway ... :)

Arfa

I'm old enough to remember all the scare stories in the press about the
impending ice age coming, after the seas freezing over around UK coasts.



--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/
 
"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:sfgbi51etn9223c56m1tegedksnc5r2b8f@4ax.com...
I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
If you take the human population of the world as P
And the rate of exhaling each hour as R
And the quantity of CO2 in each exhalation as Q
The the total CO2 produced by people in an hour is then simply PxRxQ.

Everyone should hold their breath for an hour a day.

Note: We leave it to the student to find the values of P, R and Q.
 
"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:3eoVm.34259$iW.13517@newsfe30.ams2:

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:sfgbi51etn9223c56m1tegedksnc5r2b8f@4ax.com...
I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm reading at the
moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of the University of East
Anglia, it's not going to have any genuine effect anyway ... :)

Arfa
the MAJOR effect of "AGW" or "climate change" is the onerous regulation
pressed upon us.
"AGW/Climate change" is being used by the Marxists to grab control.

It's all about "redistribution of wealth" and power.

and it will have a tremendous effect(negative) on you and me.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
 
.. wrote:
Dear All,
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the
planet. It will also affect us;
Yes, all the glaciers will melt and the oceans will rise. So what, it's
only water. Stand there and drown or move to higher ground.
 
On 13 dic, 22:12, "." <sustainable.future...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the
I am suspicious of the extent of the threat due to the involvement of
the likes of Al Gore in this issue, and recent press of the email
leaks before copenhagen. Yet we should also be aware there are large
corporate interests who are, I suspect, behind much of the negative
coverage of the climate change issue.

A wholesale rejection of the very real man-made threats to the
environment simply plays into the hands of the corporate elites who
have already wreaked havoc worldwide. Scientists of international
renown, including nobel prizewinners, have drawn conclusions endorsed
by all the leading academies and national instututes of science. I'm
not about to dismiss that kind of endorsement in favour of conspiracy
theories, at least not until I see hard evidence instead of the
corporate sponsored media campaigns against GW.

No matter how much I disagree with the implementation of some of the
enviormnental protection measures, I'm not going to play the game of
the powerful anti-GW corporate lobby just so they can go on getting
rich. if they had their way there'd be no protection or regualtion of
polluters at all, and we'd all be worse off. I disagree with the way
things like lead free solder and lightbulbs have been handled ie.,
legislation made often by ignorant bureaucrats with no scientific
logic but it seems that these things so far have served to tire many
people of the whole GW thing to distract us from the real issues - the
economic geopolitical power structure which at present, serves only
the interests of its own.

We are but pawns until we start using evidence properly. let's base
our positions on science not propaganda, one way or the other.
 
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:12:53 -0800 (PST), "."
<sustainable.future115@gmail.com> wrote:
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the
planet.
Assumption, the mother of all screwups. When it's warmer than usual,
it's global warming. When it's wetter than usual, it's global
warming. When there's a drought, it's global warming. When sunspots
fail to appear, it's global warming. When there's an unscheduled
political change, or the stock market dives, it's global warming.
Anything even slightly off normal, it's global warming. Somehow, I'm
more than a little suspicious.

Of course the sources of information are also suspect. The same
people that can't predict if it's going to rain tomorrow, are now
asking us to believe their weather forecast for 100 years from now.
Global computer weather models that predict the future, can't seem to
do as well predicting known events (Maunder Minimum and medieval
warming period) in the past.

In the 1950's, one of the suggestions for preventing global nuclear
self-destruction was to unite the world against a single threat.
Contrived invaders from Mars or other outside influence was the most
common suggestion. Science fiction was written around this theme.
Well, they were close. We now have something we can all fight
together, even if it might be faked or contrived. Maybe spending
money on fighting global warming can save the economy. Once we fix
global warming, we can get together and fight the oncoming ice age.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
 
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:02:00 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy
<macy@california.com> wrote:

Recently on PBS News, "Global Warming blamed for wars in
Africa." ..haven't heard that again, but this was seriously
presented.
Cute. I hadn't heard that one.

With regard to total effects causing global warming, it's just that no
one talks about the magnitude of the effect of methane belching out of
melting tundra, nor the constant fire [major source of CO2] in
Indonesia, nor the magnitude of the effect of that volcano two weeks
ago putting out the equivalent of 25 years of industrial pollution.
All inputs to the model should be put into perspective.
Bingo. While research papers and reports all itemize the alleged
causes and potential effects with copious numbers and statistics, the
information delivered to the general public is devoid of any real
numbers suitable for making an intelligent comparison or decision.
This is more an indictment of the publics inability to digest numbers
than an unwillingness of the proponents of global warming to supply
numbers. The result is that really important numbers get lost in the
trivia. As you note, prespective is lost.

Scare tactics? Years ago, California went through one of its many
drought crises. We were all put onto mandatory cut backs, and
encouraged to reduce consumption 25%. News kept showing empty
reservoirs. We wer to cut back even at the loss of recently installed
expensive landscaping. However, it really took the edge off suffering
through all our personal hardship when I learned that even if EVERY
citizens of California took their personal consumption to 0, that's
ZERO! the dent on water consumption in California would be a 10%
reduction. Takes the edge off all that personal hardship.
Not quite that bad. About 67% of the water used in California is used
for agriculture. Until we find a way to grow crops without consuming
as much water, that's unlikely to change. Farmers in Sacramento have
been water rationed to the limit of productivity to protect the fish
in the delta where 80% of the water use is for agriculture. To
achieve minimal water use, they've gone to installing soil moisture
meters and irrigation controllers that monitor water use almost
continuously. Personal water consumption is ummmm.... a drop in the
bucket.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
 
On Dec 14, 9:43 am, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:12:53 -0800 (PST), "."

sustainable.future...@gmail.com> wrote:
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the
planet.

Assumption, the mother of all screwups.  When it's warmer than usual,
it's global warming.  When it's wetter than usual, it's global
warming.  When there's a drought, it's global warming.  When sunspots
fail to appear, it's global warming.  When there's an unscheduled
political change, or the stock market dives, it's global warming.
Anything even slightly off normal, it's global warming.  Somehow, I'm
more than a little suspicious.

Of course the sources of information are also suspect.  The same
people that can't predict if it's going to rain tomorrow, are now
asking us to believe their weather forecast for 100 years from now.
Global computer weather models that predict the future, can't seem to
do as well predicting known events (Maunder Minimum and medieval
warming period) in the past.

In the 1950's, one of the suggestions for preventing global nuclear
self-destruction was to unite the world against a single threat.
Contrived invaders from Mars or other outside influence was the most
common suggestion.  Science fiction was written around this theme.
Well, they were close.  We now have something we can all fight
together, even if it might be faked or contrived.  Maybe spending
money on fighting global warming can save the economy.  Once we fix
global warming, we can get together and fight the oncoming ice age.

--
Jeff Liebermann     je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558
Recently on PBS News, "Global Warming blamed for wars in
Africa." ..haven't heard that again, but this was seriously
presented.

With regard to total effects causing global warming, it's just that no
one talks about the magnitude of the effect of methane belching out of
melting tundra, nor the constant fire [major source of CO2] in
Indonesia, nor the magnitude of the effect of that volcano two weeks
ago putting out the equivalent of 25 years of industrial pollution.
All inputs to the model should be put into perspective.

Scare tactics? Years ago, California went through one of its many
drought crises. We were all put onto mandatory cut backs, and
encouraged to reduce consumption 25%. News kept showing empty
reservoirs. We wer to cut back even at the loss of recently installed
expensive landscaping. However, it really took the edge off suffering
through all our personal hardship when I learned that even if EVERY
citizens of California took their personal consumption to 0, that's
ZERO! the dent on water consumption in California would be a 10%
reduction. Takes the edge off all that personal hardship.
 
N_Cook wrote:
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3eoVm.34259$iW.13517@newsfe30.ams2...

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:sfgbi51etn9223c56m1tegedksnc5r2b8f@4ax.com...
I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm reading at
the moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of the University of
East Anglia, it's not going to have any genuine effect anyway ...
:)

Arfa




I'm old enough to remember all the scare stories in the press about
the impending ice age coming, after the seas freezing over around UK
coasts.
**I'm old enough to remember that those silly ice age articles were
published in magazines like People, Newsweek and other populist crap.
Science, Nature and Scientific American stuck to the facts. Those facts, of
course, were concerned with the very serious problem of CO2 being a major
influence in global warming.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
 
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:25:25 -0000, "N_Cook" <diverse@tcp.co.uk> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

I'm old enough to remember all the scare stories in the press about the
impending ice age coming, after the seas freezing over around UK coasts.
I think people are numbed to the reality of the impending disaster.
Constant reports about projected sea level rises of x cm per decade
are relatively meaningless unless placed in a more serious context.

In 1957 a new unit of measure, the potrzebie, was introduced.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potrzebie

One potrzebie was defined as being equal to the "thickness of Mad
issue 26, or 2.263348517438173216473 mm".

Perhaps it is time for yet another new unit of measure. I propose that
we define the "catasztrophie" as being equal to the thickness of an Al
Gore "An Inconvenient Truth" DVD case. Then perhaps when the news
reader warns us of a rise in sea levels of 6 catasztrophies within the
next 10 years, one would only need to look up from the couch and
glance at one's entertainment cabinet to immediately place the crisis
in perspective.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
 
"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:9ktci5leck8ukl2rtcm1nqjm67ued1jcrk@4ax.com...
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:12:53 -0800 (PST), "."
sustainable.future115@gmail.com> wrote:
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the
planet.

Assumption, the mother of all screwups. When it's warmer than usual,
it's global warming. When it's wetter than usual, it's global
warming. When there's a drought, it's global warming. When sunspots
fail to appear, it's global warming. When there's an unscheduled
political change, or the stock market dives, it's global warming.
Anything even slightly off normal, it's global warming. Somehow, I'm
more than a little suspicious.

Of course the sources of information are also suspect. The same
people that can't predict if it's going to rain tomorrow, are now
asking us to believe their weather forecast for 100 years from now.
Global computer weather models that predict the future, can't seem to
do as well predicting known events (Maunder Minimum and medieval
warming period) in the past.

In the 1950's, one of the suggestions for preventing global nuclear
self-destruction was to unite the world against a single threat.
Contrived invaders from Mars or other outside influence was the most
common suggestion. Science fiction was written around this theme.
Well, they were close. We now have something we can all fight
together, even if it might be faked or contrived. Maybe spending
money on fighting global warming can save the economy. Once we fix
global warming, we can get together and fight the oncoming ice age.

Do a Google search for Bolivia and glaciers.
I would like to read your rationale as to what is causing this phenomenon of
fast glacier melting.
It must be caused by something other than your hot air.
 
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:51:17 -0500, "Charlie" <left@thestation.com>
put finger to keyboard and composed:

If you take the human population of the world as P
And the rate of exhaling each hour as R
And the quantity of CO2 in each exhalation as Q
The the total CO2 produced by people in an hour is then simply PxRxQ.

Everyone should hold their breath for an hour a day.
I wouldn't go that far, but I wonder just how much of our human
respiration is absolutely necessary.

On the one hand we have obese people contributing to global warming
via their wasteful metabolisms, while on the other hand we have
fitness zealots expending needless CO2 while running on the spot. Both
are wantonly contributing to global warming via their gluttony and
vanity.

I propose to lead by example by lying on the couch and restricting my
metabolism by means of a reduction in dietary intake, and by espousing
the philosophy of Non-Running.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
 
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:08:05 -0600, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

"AGW/Climate change" is being used by the Marxists to grab control.

It's all about "redistribution of wealth" and power.

and it will have a tremendous effect(negative) on you and me.
I see global warming as a tremendous investment opportunity.

I'm betting that you can now buy several kilometres of beachfront
property in the Maldive Islands for a handful of dollars. If you're a
skeptic, then this real estate will be a bargain. What's more, if
you're a real contrarian, and you expect the oceans to recede, then
you could speculate on some property that is presently under water.

If you're in the other camp, and you zealously believe that
temperatures will rise, then now is the time to acquire great tracts
of permafrost in Greenland. You could probably snap it up for less
than America paid for Alaska.

AISI, it's a win-win opportunity. In fact I'm putting my money down
before Donald Trump gets wind of it.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
 
Jerry Peters wrote:
Trevor Wilson <trevor@spamblockrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
N_Cook wrote:
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3eoVm.34259$iW.13517@newsfe30.ams2...

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:sfgbi51etn9223c56m1tegedksnc5r2b8f@4ax.com...
I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm reading
at the moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of the
University of East Anglia, it's not going to have any genuine
effect anyway ... :)

Arfa




I'm old enough to remember all the scare stories in the press about
the impending ice age coming, after the seas freezing over around UK
coasts.

**I'm old enough to remember that those silly ice age articles were
published in magazines like People, Newsweek and other populist crap.
Science, Nature and Scientific American stuck to the facts. Those
facts, of course, were concerned with the very serious problem of
CO2 being a major influence in global warming.


Except that *water vapor* is the major "greenhouse" gas.
**Points:

* Water vapour is certainly _the_ major GHG.
* I wrote: CO2 is _a_ major GHG. Note the emphasis.
* Water vapour persists for barely hours in the atmosphere.
* CO2 persists for hundreds of years in the atmosphere.
* CO2 is the second most significant GHG, accounting for between 9% ~ 26% of
Solar forcing.
* There is not much we can do about water vapour.
* There is much that can be done to reduce CO2 emissions.

To get their dire predictions the climastrologists assume that rising
CO2 will cause a positive feedback effect with water vapor.
**It's CLIMATOLOGISTS, moron. Learn to spell it correctly. Learn a little
about the climate of this planet whilst you are at it. And yes, More CO2 may
well lead to most water vapour, thus exacerbating the effect.

As for Scientific American, read their latest editorial on GW. It
sounds like the ravings of a left-wing loony conspiracy theorist.
**Except that Scientific American is concerned with, well, science.
Something you clearly have no knowledge of.

BTW, any one ever heard of the University of East Anglia *before* the
emails were leaked? Take a look at the money they've been pulling
in for their climate research.
**So? Are you attempting to link ONE instance where researchers fucked up,
with the thousands of researchers who have not?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
 
Charlie <left@thestation.com> wrote:
"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:9ktci5leck8ukl2rtcm1nqjm67ued1jcrk@4ax.com...
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:12:53 -0800 (PST), "."
sustainable.future115@gmail.com> wrote:
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the
planet.

Assumption, the mother of all screwups. When it's warmer than usual,
it's global warming. When it's wetter than usual, it's global
warming. When there's a drought, it's global warming. When sunspots
fail to appear, it's global warming. When there's an unscheduled
political change, or the stock market dives, it's global warming.
Anything even slightly off normal, it's global warming. Somehow, I'm
more than a little suspicious.

Of course the sources of information are also suspect. The same
people that can't predict if it's going to rain tomorrow, are now
asking us to believe their weather forecast for 100 years from now.
Global computer weather models that predict the future, can't seem to
do as well predicting known events (Maunder Minimum and medieval
warming period) in the past.

In the 1950's, one of the suggestions for preventing global nuclear
self-destruction was to unite the world against a single threat.
Contrived invaders from Mars or other outside influence was the most
common suggestion. Science fiction was written around this theme.
Well, they were close. We now have something we can all fight
together, even if it might be faked or contrived. Maybe spending
money on fighting global warming can save the economy. Once we fix
global warming, we can get together and fight the oncoming ice age.

Do a Google search for Bolivia and glaciers.
I would like to read your rationale as to what is causing this phenomenon of
fast glacier melting.
It must be caused by something other than your hot air.


Ooh a GW True Believer. Have you properly genuflected to Al Gore yet
today?

It's been both cooler & warmer in the historical record. There were
dairy farms in Greenland in Viking times. Some of them are still
buried by ice, BTW.

One of the "tricks" used by AGW True Believers is to eliminate the
Medieval Warm Period so that the current warming looks extreme.

Then there's the alleged accuracy of their temperature measurements,
less that 1 degree from 100 year old data & tree rings, give me a break!

I live in Pennsylvania. Where I'm currently sitting there were once
ice sheets, they melted, it's what happens when the earth ends a cold
period and starts to defrost, get over it.

Jerry
 
Trevor Wilson <trevor@spamblockrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
N_Cook wrote:
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3eoVm.34259$iW.13517@newsfe30.ams2...

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:sfgbi51etn9223c56m1tegedksnc5r2b8f@4ax.com...
I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm reading at
the moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of the University of
East Anglia, it's not going to have any genuine effect anyway ...
:)

Arfa




I'm old enough to remember all the scare stories in the press about
the impending ice age coming, after the seas freezing over around UK
coasts.

**I'm old enough to remember that those silly ice age articles were
published in magazines like People, Newsweek and other populist crap.
Science, Nature and Scientific American stuck to the facts. Those facts, of
course, were concerned with the very serious problem of CO2 being a major
influence in global warming.


Except that *water vapor* is the major "greenhouse" gas.

To get their dire predictions the climastrologists assume that rising
CO2 will cause a positive feedback effect with water vapor.

As for Scientific American, read their latest editorial on GW. It
sounds like the ravings of a left-wing loony conspiracy theorist.

BTW, any one ever heard of the University of East Anglia *before* the
emails were leaked? Take a look at the money they've been pulling
in for their climate research.

Jerry
 
Trevor Wilson wrote:

Jerry Peters wrote:

Trevor Wilson <trevor@spamblockrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

N_Cook wrote:

Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3eoVm.34259$iW.13517@newsfe30.ams2...

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:sfgbi51etn9223c56m1tegedksnc5r2b8f@4ax.com...

I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm reading
at the moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of the
University of East Anglia, it's not going to have any genuine
effect anyway ... :)

Arfa




I'm old enough to remember all the scare stories in the press about
the impending ice age coming, after the seas freezing over around UK
coasts.

**I'm old enough to remember that those silly ice age articles were
published in magazines like People, Newsweek and other populist crap.
Science, Nature and Scientific American stuck to the facts. Those
facts, of course, were concerned with the very serious problem of
CO2 being a major influence in global warming.



Except that *water vapor* is the major "greenhouse" gas.


**Points:

* Water vapour is certainly _the_ major GHG.
* I wrote: CO2 is _a_ major GHG. Note the emphasis.
* Water vapour persists for barely hours in the atmosphere.
* CO2 persists for hundreds of years in the atmosphere.
* CO2 is the second most significant GHG, accounting for between 9% ~ 26% of
Solar forcing.
* There is not much we can do about water vapour.
* There is much that can be done to reduce CO2 emissions.


To get their dire predictions the climastrologists assume that rising
CO2 will cause a positive feedback effect with water vapor.


**It's CLIMATOLOGISTS, moron. Learn to spell it correctly. Learn a little
about the climate of this planet whilst you are at it. And yes, More CO2 may
well lead to most water vapour, thus exacerbating the effect.


As for Scientific American, read their latest editorial on GW. It
sounds like the ravings of a left-wing loony conspiracy theorist.


**Except that Scientific American is concerned with, well, science.
Something you clearly have no knowledge of.


BTW, any one ever heard of the University of East Anglia *before* the
emails were leaked? Take a look at the money they've been pulling
in for their climate research.


**So? Are you attempting to link ONE instance where researchers fucked up,
with the thousands of researchers who have not?


I wasn't aware there was a difference?

The old saying goes.

"Birds of a feather flock together"
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top