World Meteorological Organization: Carbon Dioxide hits 400ppm, 'Time is running out'

solutions:

move the earth further from the sun

ban all forms of computers, cars and fossil fuel burning power stations

get fewer humans


the last one gets my vote, would it not be better to have a paradise for 2 billion than have a living hell for 20 billion?

nuclear is all right, but not ideal for grid fluctuations, wind and wave power both suffer from unpredictability, geothermal hydroelectric and tidal all need the right conditions but are otherwise good.

if we cracked efficient storage we might be ok going green. although the best way is simply to use less, which means no high powered computers :O
 
arknor said:
that better world comes at huge cost to us though..

like all the green energy crap pushing up electricity prices because of stupid wind farms etc

we need more nuclear
Click to expand...

Solar and wind are both far cheaper than nuclear, KWh-for-KWh. :rolleyes:

The only advantage nuclear has (and it's a big one) is that it goes continuously and is a bit more secure than hydrocarbons as the EU as a whole haggles for the best prices on uranium.

Edit: oops, D.P. got there first in #34 :o
 
Last edited:
arknor said:
well I'm guessing the houston layout isn't cramped from the land area it would require for 6.7billion people but I did mention farmland will likely be an issue at some point if we carry on like this
Click to expand...

Depends what your definition of cramped is...
 
wilber said:
Having said that, Fossil fuels receive HUGE tax breaks.
Click to expand...
Amp34 said:
Any evidence that fossil fuels receive huge tax breaks?
Click to expand...


Very good point worth bringing up. The BBC news put it well a few weeks ago:

Fossil fuel subsidies growing despite concerns

Government subsidies for renewable energy cause great consternation to those who believe in the sanctity of free markets.

"If they can't stand on their own feet, then why support them?" the argument goes.

But in actual fact, most energy sources are subsidised, and none more so than fossil fuels. Indeed in straight numerical terms, subsidies for oil, coal and gas far outweigh those for renewables.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), in 2012 global fossil fuel subsidies totalled $544bn (£323bn; 392bn euros), while those for renewables amounted to $101bn. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) puts the total for hydrocarbons nearer $2 trillion.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
altus said:
The IPCC’s conclusion that CO2 has a major warming effect is false. In the pre-Cambrian era 750 million years ago the Earth was an ice-planet, with glaciers at sea level at the Equator: yet atmospheric CO2 concentration was 300,000 ppmv – about 700 times today’s 400 ppmv. If CO2 had the large warming effect the IPCC imagines, the glaciers could not have been there.
Click to expand...

So you're saying "CO2 CANNOT have a warming effect, BECAUSE at one point in time CO2 concentration was high and temperatures were low"?

Talk about oversimplifying things. You've disregarded the ENTIRE atmospheric physics literature other than one measurement (but no source given) and drawn a conclusion on that alone.

Presumably you got that tidbit from the link below. Once again it's Lord Monckton, the classicist. Amazing that he can be a climate expert with no training. Edit: oh and he's joined UKIP now, what a hero!

http://www.rightsidenews.com/201002...y-responds-to-a-qglobal-warmingq-fanatic.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

Tefal said:
http://www.earth.lsa.umich.edu/~nsheldon/Sheldon2006PCRes.pdf
Click to expand...

What's that paper got to do with altus' post?
 
Last edited:
wilber said:
What an ill informed comment specifically in relation to wind farms.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but tbh policy is now based on reaction to UKIP and shire county MP's/daily mail.

Happy to be waiting on the delivery of my wind turbine after spending 3 years in the process.


EWT.mantonfarm_01.jpg
 
LateX'Dog said:
Source?
Click to expand...

In the Neoproterozoic Era, ~750 million years ago, dolomitic rocks, containing ~40% CO2 bonded not only with calcium ions but also with magnesium, were precipitated from the oceans worldwide by a reaction that could not have occurred unless the atmospheric concentration of CO2 had been ~300,000 parts per million by volume.

Testimony of The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley Before Congress May 6, 2010

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-...kton_of_brenchley_before_congress_may_6_2010/

I believe this information came from Ian Plimer an Australian geologist.
I am also sure that the US congress would have pulled him up on it if it was BS.
 
There are two links in my signature that have some bearing on peoples thoughts about energy costs and windpower.

My apologies the links dont work but the addresses are correct. Copy the text of the link into your browser and it will work fine. I'm just going to bed so I'll work out whats wrong with the link tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
joeyjojo said:
lolaltus :rolleyes:

So you're saying "CO2 CANNOT have a warming effect, BECAUSE at one point in time CO2 concentration was high and temperatures were low"?

Talk about oversimplifying things. You've disregarded the ENTIRE atmospheric physics literature other than one measurement (but no source given) and drawn a conclusion on that alone.

Presumably you got that tidbit from the link below. Once again it's Lord Monckton, the classicist. Amazing that he can be a climate expert with no training. Edit: oh and he's joined UKIP now, what a hero!

http://www.rightsidenews.com/201002...y-responds-to-a-qglobal-warmingq-fanatic.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley



What's that paper got to do with altus' post?
Click to expand...

Hello joeyjojo ,of course CO2 has a warming effect, its a greenhouse gas.
The question is how much, and can it override natural variation.
If CO2 causes runaway warming like you think it does, then tell me why It did not before?
or are you saying only Human released CO2 can do it?

I know you don't like Monckton as you have told me many times, I wouldn't like him if I was a believer either, he would make me feel wrong all the time.
 
FISHGUTS said:
Agreed, but tbh policy is now based on reaction to UKIP and shire county MP's/daily mail.

Happy to be waiting on the delivery of my wind turbine after spending 3 years in the process.


http://www.ewtdirectwind.com/uploads/pics/EWT.mantonfarm_01.jpg
Click to expand...

She's a beauty. I live in rural wales and my neighbor has recently put up a 50kw turbine. I love it, I have an amazing view from my kitchen window and this now sitting on the hill is awesome. He has solar panels too, but in my opinion they look terrible and are also visible at night when the moonlight reflects off them.
 
altus said:
Hello joeyjojo ,of course CO2 has a warming effect, its a greenhouse gas.
The question is how much, and can it override natural variation.
If CO2 causes runaway warming like you think it does, then tell me why It did not before?
or are you saying only Human released CO2 can do it?

I know you don't like Monckton as you have told me many times, I wouldn't like him if I was a believer either, he would make me feel wrong all the time.
Click to expand...

Hi. We both agree CO2 sensitivity is an important parameter. I wouldn't say "CO2 causes runaway warming", but it's certainly part of the system, and it's not impossible to imagine a planet getting perturbed and burning up. Venus probably started with an Earth-like atmosphere, but suffered a runaway greenhouse effect...

I took exception to your fallacious hit-and-run post of some scientific-sounding language with no source.

Anyway, we should let the discussion go back to policy, more interesting.
 
Last edited:
PlacidCasual said:
There are two links in my signature that have some bearing on peoples thoughts about energy costs and windpower.
Click to expand...

So how does the John Muir Trust think we should create energy?
Fracking or Nuclear...import maybe?
I bet they don't like anything?

As long as it's somewhere else to where John Muir Trust is interested in?
 
joeyjojo said:
Hi. We both agree CO2 sensitivity is an important parameter. I wouldn't say "CO2 causes runaway warming", but it's certainly part of the system, and it's not impossible to imagine a planet getting perturbed and burning up. Venus probably started with an Earth-like atmosphere, but suffered a runaway greenhouse effect...

Anyway, we should let the discussion go back to policy, more interesting.
Click to expand...

Yes, not the place for it.
 
altus said:
Hello joeyjojo ,of course CO2 has a warming effect, its a greenhouse gas.
The question is how much, and can it override natural variation.
If CO2 causes runaway warming like you think it does, then tell me why It did not before?
or are you saying only Human released CO2 can do it?

I know you don't like Monckton as you have told me many times, I wouldn't like him if I was a believer either, he would make me feel wrong all the time.
Click to expand...

It didn't before due to a whole host of reasons, for starters the entire map of the world was completely different. I could go on and detail the scientific reasons but you are just like the young earth creationists and refuse to listen to scientific fact despite insurmountable evidence, so I wont waste my time with close-minded fools.
 
PlacidCasual said:
There are two links in my signature that have some bearing on peoples thoughts about energy costs and windpower.
Click to expand...

That should not be used to write wind power off. We have wind farms in the UK running on old technology.

The new turbines being erected today are far more productive. Renewable's are seeing a higher amount of investment so will only improve.
 
FISHGUTS said:
So how does the John Muir Trust think we should create energy?
Fracking or Nuclear...import maybe?
I bet they don't like anything?

As long as it's somewhere else to where John Muir Trust is interested in?
Click to expand...

I don't know their opinion but it seems a well researched piece on the variabiity of wind resource acoss the Uk and its impact on supply. It was provided for information feel free to draw your own conclusions on the value ofwind power, I haven't offered mine in this thread yet.
 
wilber said:
That should not be used to write wind power off. We have wind farms in the UK running on old technology.

The new turbines being erected today are far more productive. Renewable's are seeing a higher amount of investment so will only improve.
Click to expand...

That statement suggests you haven't read or haven't understood the JMT paper, it discusses resource availability rather than cost effectiveness of turbine technologies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom