perceptions_now wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 3:02pm:

What does Hewson want the world to reduce the man made greenhouse effect to. Can we get some numbers. While he is at it, what would he like Australias reduction to be. As manmade greenhouse effect (through CO2) is 0.117% of all greenhouse gases .What would he like to reduce that to and how much of that will Australias reduction be represented as?

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 3:20pm:


What's your point, Progs?

It's not the absolute amount of CO2 in the atmosphere or in the oceans, nor is it the absolute %.

I'm sure you know, the human body can get very sick &/or die, from extremely small amounts, including Cyanide and many other substances. In the case of Cyanide, something like 1 millionth of your body weight in Cyanide will be enough to do the job AND OTHER SUBSTANCES EVEN LESS!

For perspective, your 0.117% is roughly 1 thousandth, whilst a lethal dose of cyanide is 1 Millionth, that's 1,000 times less and other substances are even more lethal. 

The Climate/GHG problem is to do with the inherent balance between the Climate, GHG's & other Climate factors and that the upsetting of that balance, requires relatively small amounts of additional human created GHG's. Relatively small, in the overall context.  

Fo all of those who say CO2 is good for the Earth, you may want to consider shifting to a planet that has a little more, like Venus.

With CO2 consituting something like 96% of the Venus atmosphere, it should suit some you, who think CO2 is good. And, of course, you could take your swim tog's (bathers), as it is both warm & plenty of cloud.

However, there are a few things you may want to consider, before purchasing your travel documents -
1) When I said cloud, I meant to say they

rain sulfuric acid

, but at least you won't have worry about skin cancer, as the cloud is that thick it doesn't let any sunlight in, and;  

2) When I said warm, I meant

nearly 500c

.

3) However, at least you will save money on your travel costs, because you won't need a return ticket, as there is NO way you will make the journey back to Earth, after being soaked in acid and then fried by the heat!
 

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 4:59pm:

Use proper examples f f sake. Cyanide - 3% I added ,dead, but there was already 97% of it in my blood, so I was already dead. How did I then put 3% into my blood after that. Anyway, the representation is 0.117% I would have added, not 3% out of the total cyanide.

From the other thread, I just want to know what the representation in total greenhouse effect reduction do you people want out of the 0.117%. What do you think it would be.

June 13, 2011


It’s undeniable: our planet is changing. NASA

Today, The Conversation launches a two-week series from the nation’s top minds on the science behind climate change and the efforts of “sceptics” to cloud the debate.

The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in climate changes that cannot be explained by natural causes.

Climate change is real, we are causing it, and it is happening right now.

Like it or not, humanity is facing a problem that is unparalleled in its scale and complexity. The magnitude of the problem was given a chilling focus in the most recent report of the International Energy Agency, which their chief economist characterised as the “worst news on emissions.”

Limiting global warming to 2°C is now beginning to look like a nearly insurmountable challenge.

Like all great challenges, climate change has brought out the best and the worst in people.

At the other extreme, understandable economic insecurity and fear of radical change have been exploited by ideologues and vested interests to whip up ill-informed, populist rage, and climate scientists have become the punching bag of shock jocks and tabloid scribes.

Australians have been exposed to a phony public debate which is not remotely reflected in the scientific literature and community of experts.

Beginning today, The Conversation will bring much-needed and long-overdue accountability to the climate “sceptics.”

For the next two weeks, our series of daily analyses will show how they can side-step the scientific literature and how they subvert normal peer review. They invariably ignore clear refutations of their arguments and continue to promote demonstrably false critiques.

We will show that “sceptics” often show little regard for truth and the critical procedures of the ethical conduct of science on which real skepticism is based.

Link -
http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-is-real-an-open-letter-from-the-sci...
================================
The article is signed by professions from UWA, ANU, UNSW, University of Melbourne, University of St. Thomas, UQ, University of Adelaide, Monash University, Murdoch University, CSIRO, University of Technology Sydney, University of Ottawa.

This may be interesting!

More to follow!

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 3:20pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 12:09am:

The only climate scientist I found there was a paleoclimate scientist. Not very convincing. No climatologists.

Dont worry about them scaring you though. If you can answer the following question, then you know you must have a lot of time before everything goes belly up.

In what year will China actually begin reducing their CO2 output and what will their total CO2 output be in that year, compared to today?

Last week, I argued that Governor Tim Pawlenty’s aspiration for 5% economic growth over a full decade is implausible since the United States has achieved such steady growth only once since World War II.

Over at Economics One, Stanford economics professor John Taylor offers a more positive take, defending the goal and offering a recipe for achieving it: 1% from population growth, 1% from employment growing faster than the population, and 2.7% from productivity growth.

Add it all up and you get 4.7% growth, a bit short of Pawlenty’s target but close enough for government work.

That sounds great, and I hope it happens, regardless of who is president.

Taylor’s scenario thus assumes that everything breaks right for the U.S. economy for a full decade, with remarkable job growth and remarkable productivity growth in the economy as a whole. Not impossible but, unfortunately, not likely either.

Link -
http://seekingalpha.com/article/274944-what-would-we-need-for-persistent-5-growt...
=============================================

The fact is that Economic Growth is the product of a number of issues, including the following major factors -
1) Population Growth, which means an increasing Employment pool, as well as an increasing level of Demand.
2) Abundant & Cheap Energy, which enables & drives increased levels of Productivity, by providing an increasing capacity to produce all types of Products & Services and does so, at lower Prices.
3) Innovation, in Technology & Planning, which delivers more abundant goods and does so, at a cheaper per capita Price.

That said, there are also a few other factors that need to be kept in mind -
1) Exponential growth of anything, over time, is impossible, according to the laws of nature, as we are now finding out in terms of sustainable Population levels and Energy Production, particularly of the Fossil Fuel variety.
2) Debt levels, particularly Real Debt levels, which include massive unfunded Liabilities, such as Baby Boomer Pensions & Health Care Costs are already past the point of no return in many countries, including the USA, much of Europe & Japan.

So, I've explained a little background, to tell you that 2 of those 3 major Economic Growth factors have been slowing for some time and are now set to go into reverse, over the next 20 years.

The US & Global Population/Employment pool, will first level, as 80 million Amercians & some 2 Billion Baby Boomers Globally, first retire, then start dying enmass, in the largest human population dieoff in history.
This will put a severe crimp in the Employment pool and a massive hole in the Demand for Products & Services, over the next 20 years, plus.

In addition, US & Global Energy supplies, starting with Oil are coming under increasing strains, as Demand from a still increasing Population (at least for a while yet) has started to outstrip Energy supplies and that gap will widen.

Oil Production has already effectively Peaked and if it were not for the Global GFC, which was aided & abetted by Demographics issues & rising Energy Prices, then the increasing gap between Oil Demand & Production would have been even more evident and the Oil & other Energy Prices would already be much higher!

So, as I've already said, I've explained all that, to tell you this -
There is no way that the US Economy is going to grow at 5% over the next 10 years or 20-30 years!

In fact, it is highly likely that the levels of government stimulus & bailouts will stop, because the Debt levels are becoming so enormous and as that happens it will become apparent that those enormous & increasing levels of Debt, were the main reason that "official" GDP figures remained apparently positive.

Although, if the stimulus & bailouts were detracted, then GDP over the last 3 years or so, would still have been negative, which means that the USA & many other countries have actually been in a Recession (at least) for a lot longer than commonly thought!

That said, not only is 5% growth not going to happen, neither will there be any real growth, at all, for quite some time.

Continued stimulus/bailouts will only mask a real negative GDP and the ensuing Debt increases will only exacerbate an already terrible Debt problem!

A cessation of stimulus/bailouts &/or the introduction of AUS-terity programs, will also exacerbate what will be a terrible situation in respect of the existing Demographic & Energy Decline issues!

In short, we have a "catch 22", we're damned if we do & damned if we don't".

So, good luck & watch the Debt!