Flying by Air- the carbon footprint

[Stewart]

[QUOTE](Stewart @ Feb. 24 2007,00:10)
QUOTE
WTF? It seems to me that TC has always been pretty consistent in his confidence of the process of science. Being consistent is not being "backed into a corner"
I didn't say it was.
I was refering to his attitude of acting like a cornered animal. He got really nasty in tone. [QUOTE]

Where?

Unless some posts have been deleted, all I can see is consistent presentation based on science, and considered discussion......in spite of the sniping at him by others

Personally, i think it is totally unreasonable of TC to stop posting and reading here even for a millisecond because he has to go for a piss, a wank, or perish the thought......go to work!!

[Stewart]

TC - Please point me towards some science books that can explain how the fucking quote thingies work on this forum!  


Oh no, wait.....that was a stupid idea. I'll go down to Borders and buy a novel....that should do the trick

[Guest]

(Stewart @ Feb. 24 2007,15:45) Unless some posts have been deleted

You should take that one up in the Conspiracy Theories thread  

[Tomcat]

(ivana @ Feb. 24 2007,13:34) And are your truly serious when you cite a classified ad as proof that New Scientist is a real scientific journal!?!

Ivana , you insult the integrity of a decent and upright magazine. It is for layman and scientists alike. Not Psuedo Science as you keep on saying..

New Scientist Nov 16th 2005. The anniversary issue

The Contributions to this Edition were from some of the finest minds around........ and many others

Stevn Weinberg
Lewis Wolpert
Martin Rees
Edward O Wilson
Steven Wolfram
Steven Pinker
John D Barrow
Paul Davies
Benoit Mandelbroit
David Deutsch
Sean Carroll
Bruce lahn

this weeks issue.............
a slice of a readers letter where he talks about the brain

QUOTE
"The ways in which the Glial cells signal(both with each other and with neurons) require different mechanisms from that of neuronal- neuronal communication, this fact is also ignored. there are also many co ordinated structural changes that occur with both neuronal dendric and gial processes that mediate complex comminucation"
UNQUOTE

The job section

senior formulation sceintist
Senior lecturer statistics
Analytical Biochemist
and os on and on and on.........


Star trek.........i dont think so. ...would people look for jobs in a nerdo mag...no they wouldnt...


Kl has raised a fair point .well the Americans had a meeting last week at Capitol Hill , including india and china. they plan to limit the concentration to 500 parts per mill. after 2012 . China and India also had a meeting a couple weeks back to discuss the situation about the melting ice in the regoni which i already pointed out.


Hi Stewart ,  

[Tomcat]

(grunyen @ Feb. 24 2007,14:42) Hansen himself said after ten more years studying the issue that the forces that produce climate change are so poorly understood as to be impossible to predict.

I dont deny he said that for one moment but as you know times have changed and technology and Science has moved on....does anyone doubt this?...

He seems pretty clear to me

[Tomcat]

(Stewart @ Feb. 24 2007,15:47) TC - Please point me towards some science books that can explain how the fucking quote thingies work on this forum!  

You go to the post you want to quote from and press the quote button...then crop the info as required and post your own thoughts in the empty box above..

ahem!
This first consultation is free. But i may have to charge for further advice on how to post here

[Guest]

I guess the bottom line is we will all just have to wait to see what happens.

The problem with that is, if you are a global warming proponent, you can never be proved wrong. They will always say it's going to happen NEXT year, or even worse, that their tireless efforts so far have staved off global warming for a little longer.

I'd like to see Algore say "If X doesn't happen by Y, I'll shut the hell up and refund everyone their money"

[katoeylover]

(grunyen @ Feb. 25 2007,04:41) I'd like to see Algore say "If X doesn't happen by Y, I'll shut the hell up and refund everyone their money"

And i won't run for president....Again!!!

[Guest]

(Tomcat @ Feb. 24 2007,18:16)

(ivana @ Feb. 24 2007,13:34) And are your truly serious when you cite a classified ad as proof that New Scientist is a real scientific journal!?!

Ivana , you insult the integrity of a decent and upright magazine. It is for layman and scientists alike. Not Psuedo Science as you keep on saying..

New Scientist Nov 16th 2005. The anniversary issue

The Contributions to this Edition were from some of the finest minds around........ and many others

Stevn Weinberg
Lewis Wolpert
Martin Rees
Edward O Wilson
Steven Wolfram
Steven Pinker
John D Barrow
Paul Davies
Benoit Mandelbroit
David Deutsch
Sean Carroll
Bruce lahn

this weeks issue.............
a slice of a readers letter where he talks about the brain

QUOTE
"The ways in which the Glial cells signal(both with each other and with neurons) require different mechanisms from that of neuronal- neuronal communication, this fact is also ignored. there are also many co ordinated structural changes that occur with both neuronal dendric and gial processes that mediate complex comminucation"
UNQUOTE

The job section

senior formulation sceintist
Senior lecturer statistics
Analytical Biochemist
and os on and on and on.........


Star trek.........i dont think so. ...would people look for jobs in a nerdo mag...no they wouldnt...


Kl has raised a fair point .well the Americans had a meeting last week at Capitol Hill , including india and china. they plan to limit the concentration to 500 parts per mill. after 2012 . China and India also had a meeting a couple weeks back to discuss the situation about the melting ice in the regoni which i already pointed out.


Hi Stewart ,  

I am not an expert on nerd magazines.
I will have to defer to your judgement.
I am not here to promote my marginal opinions on any subject including science and global warming.
But if global warming leads to more naked transsexuals running around to escape the heat, I am all for it.

[Guest]

Inconvenient Truths
Novel science fiction on global warming.

By Patrick J. Michaels

This Sunday, Al Gore will probably win an Academy Award for his global-warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth, a riveting work of science fiction.

The main point of the movie is that, unless we do something very serious, very soon about carbon dioxide emissions, much of Greenland€™s 630,000 cubic miles of ice is going to fall into the ocean, raising sea levels over twenty feet by the year 2100.

Where€™s the scientific support for this claim? Certainly not in the recent Policymaker€™s Summary from the United Nations€™ much anticipated compendium on climate change. Under the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change€™s medium-range emission scenario for greenhouse gases, a rise in sea level of between 8 and 17 inches is predicted by 2100. Gore€™s film exaggerates the rise by about 2,000 percent.

Even 17 inches is likely to be high, because it assumes that the concentration of methane, an important greenhouse gas, is growing rapidly. Atmospheric methane concentration hasn€™t changed appreciably for seven years, and Nobel Laureate Sherwood Rowland recently pronounced the IPCC€™s methane emissions scenarios as €œquite unlikely.€

Nonetheless, the top end of the U.N.€™s new projection is about 30-percent lower than it was in its last report in 2001. €œThe projections include a contribution due to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica for the rates observed since 1993,€ according to the IPCC, €œbut these flow rates could increase or decrease in the future.€

According to satellite data published in Science in November 2005, Greenland was losing about 25 cubic miles of ice per year. Dividing that by 630,000 yields the annual percentage of ice loss, which, when multiplied by 100, shows that Greenland was shedding ice at 0.4 percent per century.

€œWas€ is the operative word. In early February, Science published another paper showing that the recent acceleration of Greenland€™s ice loss from its huge glaciers has suddenly reversed.

Nowhere in the traditionally refereed scientific literature do we find any support for Gore€™s hypothesis. Instead, there€™s an unrefereed editorial by NASA climate firebrand James E. Hansen, in the journal Climate Change €” edited by Steven Schneider, of Stanford University, who said in 1989 that scientists had to choose €œthe right balance between being effective and honest€ about global warming€” and a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that was only reviewed by one person, chosen by the author, again Dr. Hansen.

These are the sources for the notion that we have only ten years to €œdo€ something immediately to prevent an institutionalized tsunami. And given that Gore only conceived of his movie about two years ago, the real clock must be down to eight years!

It would be nice if my colleagues would actually level with politicians about various €œsolutions€ for climate change. The Kyoto Protocol, if fulfilled by every signatory, would reduce global warming by 0.07 degrees Celsius per half-century. That€™s too small to measure, because the earth€™s temperature varies by more than that from year to year.

The Bingaman-Domenici bill in the Senate does less than Kyoto €” i.e., less than nothing €” for decades, before mandating larger cuts, which themselves will have only a minor effect out past somewhere around 2075. (Imagine, as a thought experiment, if the Senate of 1925 were to dictate our energy policy for today).

Mendacity on global warming is bipartisan. President Bush proposes that we replace 20 percent of our current gasoline consumption with ethanol over the next decade. But it€™s well-known that even if we turned every kernel of American corn into ethanol, it would displace only 12 percent of our annual gasoline consumption. The effect on global warming, like Kyoto, would be too small to measure, though the U.S. would become the first nation in history to burn up its food supply to please a political mob.

And even if we figured out how to process cellulose into ethanol efficiently, only one-third of our greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation. Even the Pollyannish 20-percent displacement of gasoline would only reduce our total emissions by 7-percent below present levels €” resulting in emissions about 20-percent higher than Kyoto allows.

And there€™s other legislation out there, mandating, variously, emissions reductions of 50, 66, and 80 percent by 2050. How do we get there if we can€™t even do Kyoto?

When it comes to global warming, apparently the truth is inconvenient. And it€™s not just Gore€™s movie that€™s fiction. It€™s the rhetoric of the Congress and the chief executive, too.

€” Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.

[PigDogg]

Big Al was holding Oscar tonight.

[katoeylover]

(PigDogg @ Feb. 26 2007,11:52) Big Al was holding Oscar tonight.

And no doubt a whole load of contributions for his "cause" of the moment.

Only in America

[Tomcat]

James Randerson, science correspondent
Thursday June 22, 2006
The Guardian

European Commission report
QUOTE
The UK's emissions of the powerful greenhouse gas methane are nearly double what the government says they are, according to a global audit of methane emissions.
The study, which looked at how much methane is released into the air rather than extrapolating from known sources such as landfill sites, suggests that Britain's actual contribution is 92% up on what it declares under the Kyoto protocol. It also suggests that France is emitting 47% more methane than it declares.
END QUOTE

A more recent study is in last months Scientific American i do believe . If anyone has a copy feel free to submit it.

also....from Nature website.....just for interest only!
QUOTE
Scientists kick off huge polar research plan
International Polar Year will feature more than 220 separate projects.  the Earth's poles are about to be given their most through examination ever With contributions from 50,000 scientists in 63 nations, the International Polar Year, launched today, will be the most far-reaching investigation into the biology and geophysics of the Arctic and Antarctic ever mounted.
END QUOTE

Ps
The feb report about greenland that Grunyen mentions only refers to two glaciers not the whole of greenland .
It states that two Glaciers were on a stop start melting cycle.

[Guest]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs

This is an absolutely brilliant, energetic, and simple to understand presentation on the ECONOMIC view of solving problems in the world.
It's 18 minutes of your life.

[Guest]

Very interesting.

Here is a shorter piece (5mins) where the same author speaks more directly to the issue of global warming. Putting it nicely in perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....search=