74
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 04:29 pm
It's gets tiresome, but I'm going to post this again which shows how democratic presidents performed over republican presidents. Your interpretations mean absolutely zilch when all you offer is rhetoric that doesn't match the record.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/imposter222/14opchartfull1.jpg
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 05:15 pm
@ican711nm,
My previous post is still in effect ican.

Under certain conditions X would be bigger and in conditions Z would be.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 11:10 am
@parados,
An increase in H2O in the atmosphere by an amount W increases IR absorbtion in the atmosphere by an amount X.

An increase in CO2 in the atmosphere by an amount Y increases IR absorbtion in the atmosphere by an amount Z.

For W = Y, what conditions equal for W and Y, would cause X not to exceed Z?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 05:25 pm
@ican711nm,
If there is enough H2O to absorb all the IR in the H2O range it doesn't matter how much W is, X will always be zero because you can't absorb more than 100%.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 07:38 pm
@parados,
IR is continuously emitted in our atmosphere from the surface of the earth, from within the atmosphere itself, from the sun, etc..
My question related to the relative amounts of IR emitted from a given ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere that has absorbed IR to its capacity (or given % of its capacity), and from the same ppm of H2O in the atmosphere that has absorbed IR to its capacity (or same given % of its capacity).
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 09:04 pm
@ican711nm,
I didn't realize there was a "capacity" for IR absorption in any molecule. Can you give me a scientific reference that would show that to be true?

If there is a capacity for IR absorption, don't you think the molecules would have reached that capacity after billions of years of IR bombarding them? Why do you think they still absorb IR today?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 09:07 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
My question related to the relative amounts of IR emitted from a given ppm of CO2
Your question had NOTHING to do with the IR emitted from CO2. You only asked about absorption.
0 Replies
 
Deckland
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 10:50 pm
@Foxfyre,
Thanks Foxfyre .... Ah yes, the batteries are fully charged....
http://i638.photobucket.com/albums/uu107/MrDeckland/th_bsmeter.gif
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 11:39 pm
Okay guys, you're now on a strict kelp and tofu diet. We have to keep growing more corn and stuff for bio fuels, but food production is destroying the planet:

Quote:
By BEN JACKSON
Environment Editor
Published: Today
April 20, 2009

THE rising number of fat people was yesterday blamed for global warming.
Scientists warned that the increase in big-eaters means more food production " a major cause of CO2 gas emissions warming the planet.

Overweight people are also more likely to drive, adding to environmental damage.

Lard help us ... overweight must eat less for planet

Dr Phil Edwards, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said: “Moving about in a heavy body is like driving in a gas guzzler.”

Each fat person is said to be responsible for emitting a tonne more of climate-warming carbon dioxide per year than a thin one.

It means an extra BILLION TONNES of CO2 a year is created, according to World Health Organisation estimates of overweight people.

The scientists say providing extra grub for them to guzzle adds to carbon emissions that heat up the world, melting polar ice caps, raising sea levels and killing rain forests.

The environmental impact of fat humans is made even worse because they are more likely to travel by car " another major cause of carbon emissions.

And researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine say wealthy nations like the US and Britain are getting fatter by the decade.

Dr Phil Edwards said: “Food production accounts for about one fifth of greenhouse gases.

“We need to do a lot more to reverse the global trend towards fatness. It is a key factor in the battle to reduce carbon emissions and slow climate change.

“It is time we took account of the amount we are eating.

“This is about over-consumption by the wealthy countries. And the world demand for meat is increasing to match that of Britain and America.

“It is also much easier to get in your car and pick up a pint of milk than to take a walk.”

The study by Dr Edwards and colleague Ian Roberts is published in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

Dr Edwards went on: “We are not just pointing the finger at fat people. All populations are getting fatter and it has an impact on the environment.

“UK health surveys estimate fatness has increased from an average body mass index of 26 to 27 in the last ten years.

“That’s equivalent to about half a stone for every person.”

Anyone with a BMI above 25 is overweight, while more than 30 is obese.

A staggering 40 per cent of Americans are obese, among 300 million worldwide.

Australian Professor Paul Zimmet predicted a disastrous obesity pandemic back in 2006.

And Oxfam warned yesterday that the number of people hit by climate-related disasters will soar by more than half in the next six years to 375million.

The impact of more storms, floods and droughts could overwhelm aid organisations.

Sun doctor Carol Cooper said last night: “I’m not sure which came first, people getting fat and driving or the other way around. It is true fat people eat more food than average.

“A few obese people have a hormone problem, although most simply don’t use enough calories and eat too many. But making them feel guilty antagonises them and may not help.”
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2387203.ece


Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 11:52 pm
@Foxfyre,
Discussing now at the lowest tabloid level ... at least, Foxfyre, you should have added the page 3 girls from the Sun ...
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 09:35 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Is the information in the piece wrong Walter? Or are you detracting again from the point being made?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 12:44 pm
@Foxfyre,
No idea if it's right or wrong.

I just don't like sexy "newspapers".
Deckland
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 12:44 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Nothing is static in nature, and it never was.
Now we have a group of people that are into panicking everytime something in nature changes, some bird species declines, whatever, and suddenly they must crusade to save that particular bird, or lizard, or turtle, everything is a crisis. Same thing with climate, they apparently believe it should stay absolutely the same, every year I guess? And after all the hand wringing, what we have now is a fraction of one degree centigrade change over the past few decades, and they are afraid the earth is in its death throws!

Spot on okie ...........
Here's how it works ..........
1.. We have to convince people of global warming
2.. Then we have to convince them that CO2 is responsible.
3.. THEN we have to convince them that the CO2 is man made.
4.. Once this is achieved, we need to convince the people to
pay a carbon tax. People will happily pay if they think they are
saving the planet from certain doom.
5.. Object achieved ... A new way to make money from all and sundry
from this new industry of carbon trading.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 12:47 pm
@Deckland,
Not to mention that the government now has license to restrict our freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities with the consent of those who buy into the whole concept of saving the planet from certain doom.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 01:02 pm
Interesting project which was launched today: a hybrid power station that will be fueled by a combination of wind, hydrogen and biogas.

(Chancellor Merkel laid the foundation stone herself in Prenzlau in the state of Brandenburg.)

The primary source of energy for the power station, being built by Dauerthal-based company ENERTRAG, will be wind turbines.

Energy not immediately used would be transformed by electrolysis into hydrogen, which could then - when demand is high or wind low - be mixed with locally produced biogas to produce electricity, a process that would produce no carbon dioxide.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 01:32 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

No idea if it's right or wrong.

I just don't like sexy "newspapers".

Walter - the original study referenced in The Sun was published in The Lancet; possibly you consider that, too, a "sexy newspaper", but that opinion isn't shared by many Smile


Quote:
...over-nutrition (and sedentarism) is causing obesity and associated serious health consequences. Worldwide, agricultural activity, especially livestock production, accounts for about a fifth of total greenhouse-gas emissions, thus contributing to climate change and its adverse health consequences....
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 01:44 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

Walter - the original study referenced in The Sun was published in The Lancet; possibly you consider that, too, a "sexy newspaper", but that opinion isn't shared by many Smile


Well, I remember having read that ... it was published about exactly one year ago.

And I there are only few pictures in The Lancet, very rarely naked persons ... But if I would post a pic of the side with the above quoted report - it would be illegal in the USA. Wink
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 02:21 pm
@Deckland,
Quote:
1.. We have to convince people of global warming
Science doesn't care about "convincing people. They care about the observable facts. Those facts point to warming. No reasonable scientist denies the globe has warmed for the last 150 years.
Quote:

2.. Then we have to convince them that CO2 is responsible.
There is some argument that CO2 isn't responsible but the best explanation that includes all the facts points to CO2 being responsible for some of the warming.
Quote:

3.. THEN we have to convince them that the CO2 is man made.
There isn't any science to show the increase is NOT man made. We know how much man produces. We know the isotopes in what man produces. We can read the changes in the atmospheric isotopes.
Quote:
4.. Once this is achieved, we need to convince the people to
pay a carbon tax. People will happily pay if they think they are
saving the planet from certain doom.
Ah yes, we see evidence here every day of how happy people are to pay a carbon tax. Laughing
Quote:
5.. Object achieved ... A new way to make money from all and sundry
from this new industry of carbon trading.
One small problem with that statement. It ignores the facts that technology can make carbon trading obsolete. If 50% of our energy came from non carbon sources there would be nothing to trade really. The problem with your scenario is you assume that non carbon energy production is much more costly than carbon based. Something that may not be true in 5 years or 20 years.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 02:27 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Possibly the link could be improved - sorry didn't test it after posting it:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61256-2/abstract
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/articl/PIIS0140-6736(07)61256-2/abstract

Sorry, link must be re-typed first, then posted in browser window to get to abstract in the Lancet; it's the identical article, of course:
Quote:
The Lancet, Volume 370, Issue 9594, Pages 1253 - 1263, 6 October 2007
<Previous Article|Next Article>
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61256-2Cite or Link Using DOI
Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health
Original Text
Prof Anthony J McMichael PhD a Corresponding AuthorEmail Address, John W Powles PhD b, Colin D Butler PhD a, Prof Ricardo Uauy PhD c d
Summary
Food provides energy and nutrients, but its acquisition requires energy expenditure. In post-hunter-gatherer societies, extra-somatic energy has greatly expanded and intensified the catching, gathering, and production of food. Modern relations between energy, food, and health are very complex, raising serious, high-level policy challenges. Together with persistent widespread under-nutrition, over-nutrition (and sedentarism) is causing obesity and associated serious health consequences. Worldwide, agricultural activity, especially livestock production, accounts for about a fifth of total greenhouse-gas emissions, thus contributing to climate change and its adverse health consequences, including the threat to food yields in many regions. Particular policy attention should be paid to the health risks posed by the rapid worldwide growth in meat consumption, both by exacerbating climate change and by directly contributing to certain diseases. To prevent increased greenhouse-gas emissions from this production sector, both the average worldwide consumption level of animal products and the intensity of emissions from livestock production must be reduced. An international contraction and convergence strategy offers a feasible route to such a goal. The current global average meat consumption is 100 g per person per day, with about a ten-fold variation between high-consuming and low-consuming populations. 90 g per day is proposed as a working global target, shared more evenly, with not more than 50 g per day coming from red meat from ruminants (ie, cattle, sheep, goats, and other digastric grazers).
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2009 02:42 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Is the information in the piece wrong Walter? Or are you detracting again from the point being made?

Based on the report itself, the information does seem to be wrong.

The piece does NOT blame fat people for global warming. That would be wrong in the Sun article.

And I have no idea why the SUN included this statement.
Quote:
And Oxfam warned yesterday that the number of people hit by climate-related disasters will soar by more than half in the next six years to 375million.

The impact of more storms, floods and droughts could overwhelm aid organisations.
It certainly has nothing to do with the work by Edwards and Roberts. Is the Sun trying to blame fat people for an increase in climate disasters?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/19/2025 at 03:10:52