pc's are co2 producers

[Glaucus]

But surely, if there was something like much bigger contributer than CO2, the science community would know about it . These are highly intelligent people who have access to reams of data and information they are surely best qualified to advise the public on the implications of different types of emissions etc.

Not doubting you or anything, i'm just interested where have you read this as i'm fairly interested in it , if you'd point me to the site/article whatever, it'd be cool.

loads in new scientist. there's a few reasons.

1) you have to look at where scientists get there funding.
2) co2 is produced in huge qauntys, thus some scientists thinks it's safe to ignore the other greenhouses gases.
3) the media love using worst case scenario and forgetting to say that its the worst worst case scenario. scaremongering sells
4) this is the most important and one people seem to forget reducing co2 emissions is not good enough as I said it's an additive process all though the sea will absorb some excess you either give up on co2 emissions or you cut them down to almost nill. anything in-between will do nothing apart from slow the process down.

 

[Rebelius]

CO2 BAAAAAAAD, Nuclear Power BAAAAAAD... surely we should just pick one or the other and be done with it, but no, it'll never happen.

 

[Squarehed]

The UK puts out 2% of world CO2 emissions. So can you explain why reducing THAT by 0.00001% will have any effect on anything.

Firstly, reducing it by 0.00001% wouldn't have any effect, it would still be 1.99998% of the world's CO2 emissions. You're absolutely right that would have miniscule effect. I don't think I said miniscule reductions like that would. On the other hand i do think that we need to do our bit however small because otherwise much larger contributing countries would not.

Also, just like to point out that we have nearly 60,000,000 in our country, and the world has 6,700,000,000. This means we have 0.89% of the population of the world, now to me that would be a reasonable target, have a carbon output relative to our size for a start.

We are currently already reducing our output and it is up to the bigger countries to do the same, i'm not thinking as a country but more as a world thing where we should use what little muscle we have to persuade other countries to make an effort to change the climate situation.

 

[dirtydog]

Also, just like to point out that we have nearly 60,000,000 in our country, and the world has 6,700,000,000. This means we have 0.89% of the population of the world, now to me that would be a reasonable target, have a carbon output relative to our size for a start.

You want to take measures which will be painful, expensive and have no proven benefit whatsoever.

 

[Squarehed]

loads in new scientist. there's a few reasons.

1) you have to look at where scientists get there funding.
2) co2 is produced in huge qauntys, thus some scientists thinks it's safe to ignore the other greenhouses gases.
3) the media love using worst case scenario and forgetting to say that its the worst worst case scenario. scaremongering sells
4) this is the most important and one people seem to forget reducing co2 emissions is not good enough as I said it's an additive process all though the sea will absorb some excess you either give up on co2 emissions or you cut them down to almost nill. anything in-between will do nothing apart from slow the process down.

Cool, i've tried to sub to New Scientist earlier today but the sub page is down and that will be interesting to read.

on point no. 4 here: What are you saying?
Firstly i don' think there's the option of giving up on CO2 emissions.
The current target that the govts are supposedly trying to achieve is to stop carbon levels rising any further, but this should be achieved a while in the future.
If we suddenly managed to cut our emissions down to nil, then we'd be reducing Carbon in the atmosphere surely because of the photosynthesis of plants etc. The point is that you can't just stop overnight, and these reductions they are trying is with the ultimate aim of stopping the emissions increasing. But each reduction in CO2 global emissions increase means that the temperature would not rise as much. This means that each time we reduce emissions increases globally, while the temperature still increases because the emissions have increased, we have are on the way to reducing our increases. This is the big challenge. Stop the emissions rising any further (ie, reaching the top of the hump on a graph of CO2 emissions before the +2 celsius mark is reached and then the 'timebomb will be defused'). I hope i'm making sense .

 

[dalin80]

The "into context" quote helps one realise how many people 6 Billion is..

"There are more people alive today than have EVER lived"


Andy

well no, not even close its estimated that around 100 billion people have been born since the start of man circa 50,000 years ago.

we represent such a tiny little slice of history that it gets a bit depressing if you look solely at numbers.

 

[The $6m Dan]

4) this is the most important and one people seem to forget reducing co2 emissions is not good enough as I said it's an additive process all though the sea will absorb some excess you either give up on co2 emissions or you cut them down to almost nill. anything in-between will do nothing apart from slow the process down.

Nature is very good at absorbing CO2 and converting it back to carbon and oxygen, so to imply that CO2 is a permanent creation is simply wrong.
If we reduced our CO2 output to what nature can handle we'd be in a much better situation.
We don't need to do anything special. We don't need to start sucking the CO2 out of the atmosphere. We just need to cut down our CO2 output.

 

[Squarehed]

You want to take measures which will be painful, expensive and have no proven benefit whatsoever.

Perhaps they are painful and expensive, but they shouldn't be, if they were really comitted to changing our emissions, the govt. would make sure that this kind of thing was not thought of as bad. Believe me, i'm gutted that when i come to being able to buy decent cars and insure them, that i've grown up drooling over they'll probably be outlawed .

Surely, though, the benefit would be that it would stop the earth possibly getting ten types of ****ed up in the future .

 

[Squarehed]

Nature is very good at absorbing CO2 and converting it back to carbon and oxygen, so to imply that CO2 is a permanent creation is simply wrong.
If we reduced our CO2 output to what nature can handle we'd be in a much better situation.
We don't need to do anything special. We don't need to start sucking the CO2 out of the atmosphere. We just need to cut down our CO2 output.

He says it better than me

I'm doomed for my geography exam tomorrow if i continue waffling like i am...

 

[MikeHunt79]

It won't be long before we have a pedal powered laptop

Ooo, I'm quoting myself - It's already done!

http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/home-built-pedal-powered-laptop

 

[Posty]

My PC is powered by wind turbines down the road so im safe

 

[zain]

Little, if not none of you watched the documentary about how this is just a big money making scheme and that this CO2 emissions heating up the earth is merely the sun giving out extra heat every 100 years or something. Something like a leading panel of about 40 scientists were then sacked and discredited.

I imagine in the future there will be lots more tax to pay and people will be happy to pay it being so gullable, will be funny and horific at the same time!

 

[FrostedNipple]

Cull a few billion people and plant some trees in their name.
That should sort it out.


Andy

Too true, my chemistry teacher has been saying this for years! It not industry, its humans, CO2 is increasing, so is the amount of humans, to many cures these days! CO2 is not proof of globalized warming, its just correlation! Every year more joysticks are made, and global warming increases, does this mean we should stop making joysticks!

I say we start culling the southern hemisphere

 

[dirtydog]

Yep. Until the government starts talking about reducing the population - both of the UK and of the world, everything else they say about 'climate change' is rubbish and can safely be ignored.

 

[Posty]

 

[Glaucus]

Nature is very good at absorbing CO2 and converting it back to carbon and oxygen, so to imply that CO2 is a permanent creation is simply wrong.
If we reduced our CO2 output to what nature can handle we'd be in a much better situation.
We don't need to do anything special. We don't need to start sucking the CO2 out of the atmosphere. We just need to cut down our CO2 output.

The thing is where producing so much more co2, than the earth can handle, if you believe the scientists. A simple 10% reduction wont do anything, as we'll still be releasing more co2 than the earth can absorb. This is where the problem is. Unless you can cut co2 emission to match what the earth can absorb, the co2 concentration is going to keep raising). If you wont co2 concentration to lower, then you have to cut co2 emission to levels below what the earth can absorb.
However most of it is on a sliding scale, so it's not that simple.

 

[Rebelius]

Surely, though, the benefit would be that it would stop the earth possibly getting ten types of ****ed up in the future .

but what about all the cars that would be outlawed (or just made really expensive) that already exist? They're going to have to be scrapped and replaced by BRAND NEW, slightly better models. Surely this whole process is going to have a massive CO2 output?


And what's wrong with nuclear power?

 

[Posty]

but what about all the cars that would be outlawed (or just made really expensive) that already exist? They're going to have to be scrapped and replaced by BRAND NEW, slightly better models. Surely this whole process is going to have a massive CO2 output?


And what's wrong with nuclear power?

the cost of storing and guarding nuclear waste for 10,000's of years makes it not worth it

 

[Squarehed]

Little, if not none of you watched the documentary about how this is just a big money making scheme and that this CO2 emissions heating up the earth is merely the sun giving out extra heat every 100 years or something. Something like a leading panel of about 40 scientists were then sacked and discredited.

I imagine in the future there will be lots more tax to pay and people will be happy to pay it being so gullable, will be funny and horific at the same time!

I heard this documentary was widely discredited and condemned, but that's just me. I definitely heard about it but did not watch it.

Indeed, there are other theories about climate change. But the one widely agreed on, i'm sorry but it is, is the one on Greenhouse gases. The others include plate tectonics and solar variation which is what you refer to here.

Perhaps it is a combination of all 3. But surely, you must agree that whatever the dubious nature of some research and the way people get funding, the fact of the matter remains that our earth is hotting up... Our CO2 levels, due to our emissions, have been rising in the same timespace and in correlation to the temperature increases. With this fact in mind, surely the best thing to do would play it safe and reduce emissions with these benefits at the end in mind:

1) If Greenhouse gases are the number one cause of climate change, as the general vibe appears to be, then we are stopped from possible irreversiblly bad climate catastrophes.
2) We have reduced our fossil fuel dependency before the finite oil/coal/gas reserves run out.
3) It was a global effort and love in that promoted international cooperation rarely seen ever in the past .

Bit hopeful all that, but i'll stand by my opinion based on the evidence given to me that i choose to believe based on the information they give at the same time. CO2 emissions are the only thing we really have an ability to change so really that's what we should focus on.

Also note having read on this solar variation theory, it seems that even the researchers on that subject who concluded that it had a bigger effect on the climate than previously thought.
BUT they also concluded that solar activity alone is not the main contributor to the recent warming.
AND they conclude that "even with an enhanced climate sensitivity to solar forcing, most of the warming during the latest decades is attributable to the increases in greenhouse gases."

 

[zain]

I heard this documentary was widely discredited and condemned, but that's just me. I definitely heard about it but did not watch it.

Indeed, there are other theories about climate change. But the one widely agreed on, i'm sorry but it is, is the one on Greenhouse gases. The others include plate tectonics and solar variation which is what you refer to here.

Perhaps it is a combination of all 3. But surely, you must agree that whatever the dubious nature of some research and the way people get funding, the fact of the matter remains that our earth is hotting up... Our CO2 levels, due to our emissions, have been rising in the same timespace and in correlation to the temperature increases. With this fact in mind, surely the best thing to do would play it safe and reduce emissions with these benefits at the end in mind:

1) If Greenhouse gases are the number one cause of climate change, as the general vibe appears to be, then we are stopped from possible irreversiblly bad climate catastrophes.
2) We have reduced our fossil fuel dependency before the finite oil/coal/gas reserves run out.
3) It was a global effort and love in that promoted international cooperation rarely seen ever in the past .

Bit hopeful all that, but i'll stand by my opinion based on the evidence given to me that i choose to believe. CO2 emissions are the only thing we really have an ability to change so really that's what we should focus on.

Also note having read on this solar variation theory, it seems that even the researchers on that subject who concluded that it had a bigger effect on the climate than previously thought.
BUT they also concluded that solar activity alone is not the main contributor to the recent warming.
AND they conclude that "even with an enhanced climate sensitivity to solar forcing, most of the warming during the latest decades is attributable to the increases in greenhouse gases."

You really believe the billions the government will make (which they will, just you see over the next few years) will actually benefit us at all? I am all for lower pollution, efficient ways of producing, etc but all I see is a big money making scheme where we have to pay.