0ZB0N wrote:

Wong Spins Wildly

July 17, 2008

None of the Rudd Government's global warming fanatics ever thought of
calling carbon dioxide "carbon pollution" until this month.

CO2 is an essential ingredient of the atmosphere without which we and most other life on earth
would not exist.

How the 'greenies' have got to label it a 'poison' is beyond me.

Graham

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 01:26:30 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



0ZB0N wrote:

Wong Spins Wildly

July 17, 2008

None of the Rudd Government's global warming fanatics ever thought of
calling carbon dioxide "carbon pollution" until this month.

CO2 is an essential ingredient of the atmosphere without which we and most other life on earth
would not exist.

How the 'greenies' have got to label it a 'poison' is beyond me.

Graham



Its necessary as recent polls in Australia, and Id guess this is the
same in other countries as well revealed that Joe Average public
has no idea what Emissions Trading is, so in order to persuade people
that CO2 emissions must be reduced you redefine CO2 as a pollutant.

And on this topic, just how many people on this NG actually understand
what emissions trading is .
For example with a carbon tax of $20 thru to $100 a tonne CO2 emitted
,how much will this increase electricity prices in your country.

On Jul 19, 10:26 am, Eeyore
wrote:

snip

CO2 is an essential ingredient of the atmosphere without which we and most other life on earth
would not exist.

That's true. So is oxygen. But above a certain point, the margin of
utility falls and at some point, it becomes positively harmful to most
life.

The planet can of course survive such changes. We humans however like
to imagine that we will not only survive but do at least as well as we
are now.

So your claim points to a composition fallacy -- that a little bit is
a good thing does not mean a lot would be a better thing, or even
tolerable to most life on Earth.


How the 'greenies' have got to label it a 'poison' is beyond me.


Not 'beyond' you just 'beyond' the point at which you developed your
idea. It's the intellectual equivalent of saying 'that corner is
beyond me' when all you need to do is to keep walking.

Fran

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:55:00 -0700 (PDT), Fran
wrote:

On Jul 19, 10:26 am, Eeyore
wrote:

snip

CO2 is an essential ingredient of the atmosphere without which we and most other life on earth
would not exist.

That's true. So is oxygen. But above a certain point, the margin of
utility falls and at some point, it becomes positively harmful to most
life.

The planet can of course survive such changes. We humans however like
to imagine that we will not only survive but do at least as well as we
are now.

So your claim points to a composition fallacy -- that a little bit is
a good thing does not mean a lot would be a better thing, or even
tolerable to most life on Earth.


How the 'greenies' have got to label it a 'poison' is beyond me.


Not 'beyond' you just 'beyond' the point at which you developed your
idea. It's the intellectual equivalent of saying 'that corner is
beyond me' when all you need to do is to keep walking.

Fran


The problem with a little and a lot is that CO2 concentration in the
atmosphere is tiny, currently 340 ppM , compared to 270 ppM 100 years
ago.
So it has gone up , but not by a lot.
An analogy would a almost empty glass of water into which you add a
few drops of addirional water with a eye dropper and then claim we
have a huge amount of water in the glass.

Water vapour , which is a far worse greenhouse gas can exist in
concentrations of up to 4%, so its far worse than CO2 .
Dont see anyone complaing about water vapour in the air though.

On Jul 19, 2:31*pm, (Mauried) wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:55:00 -0700 (PDT), Fran
wrote:





On Jul 19, 10:26 am, Eeyore
wrote:

snip

CO2 is an essential ingredient of the atmosphere without which we and most other life on earth
would not exist.

That's true. So is oxygen. But above a certain point, the margin of
utility falls and at some point, it becomes positively harmful to most
life.

The planet can of course survive such changes. We humans however like
to imagine that we will not only survive but do at least as well as we
are now.

So your claim points to a composition fallacy -- that a little bit is
a good thing does not mean a lot would be a better thing, or even
tolerable to most life on Earth.

How the 'greenies' have got to label it a 'poison' is beyond me.

Not 'beyond' you just 'beyond' the point at which you developed your
idea. It's the intellectual equivalent of saying 'that corner is
beyond me' when all you need to do is to keep walking.

Fran

The problem with a little and a lot is that CO2 concentration in the
atmosphere is tiny, currently 340 ppM ,

Correction 387 ppmv. IIRC it hasn't been 340 since the 1950s or
earlier.


compared to 270 ppM 100 years
ago


About 120 years ago ...

.
So it has gone up , but not by a lot.

About 38% ... that's a lot considering the longterm stability in the
previous 13000 years.

An analogy would a almost empty *glass of water into which you add a
few drops of addirional water with a eye dropper and then claim we
have a huge amount of water in the glass.


No, an analogy would be like the in tray on someone's desk. The person
processes about the same number each day and this utnrs out to be
about the same as the incoming stuff. Then someone decides that the
department needs to do more work and starts digging out files from the
archive, directing the extra work to the clerk, who, because he is
unable to keep up watches helplessly as stuff starts falling out of
the in tray and onto his desk and then the floor. Eventually the
manager comes down and notices that the in tray is 38% fuller than it
was for most of the last 5 years.

When the clerk is invited to explain the mess on his desk and the fact
that the papers are spreading, the clerk says his ability to process
has not declined but the other sections are asking him to process
archived material that was long buried.

Water vapour , which is a far worse greenhouse gas can exist in
concentrations of up to 4%, so its far worse than CO2 .

Misleading. In some parts of the planet it is 0%. Only near the
equator is it close to 4%. Water vapour has very short atmospheric
residence and is continually recycled, so it tends not to build up.
Its effect is a constant. CO2 is a marginal and increasing effect
which also allows the air to hold more water vapour, potentiating its
effects.

Dont see anyone complaing about water vapour in the air though

Why would they, since it's pretty constant? If it were increasing at
the rate GHGs are, we'd be in a hell of a lot more trouble than we are
now.

Fran

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 01:26:30 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



0ZB0N wrote:

Wong Spins Wildly

July 17, 2008

None of the Rudd Government's global warming fanatics ever thought of
calling carbon dioxide "carbon pollution" until this month.

CO2 is an essential ingredient of the atmosphere without which we and most other life on earth
would not exist.

How the 'greenies' have got to label it a 'poison' is beyond me.

So, if you could stay in a room with 30% CO2, you would happily do so?

It's about having the right amount. Too much CO2 is bad, just as
having too litle CO2 is bad.

--
SEE YA !!!
Trygve Lillefosse
AKA - Malawi, The Fisher King

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:53:52 -0700 (PDT), Fran
wrote:

On Jul 19, 2:31*pm, (Mauried) wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:55:00 -0700 (PDT), Fran
wrote:

When the clerk is invited to explain the mess on his desk and the fact
that the papers are spreading, the clerk says his ability to process
has not declined but the other sections are asking him to process
archived material that was long buried.

Actualy, his ability to process(photosyntesize) has gone up, as he
works a bit faster due to the redily available papers. Meaning that
the inbox would othervise be even fuller.

--
SEE YA !!!
Trygve Lillefosse
AKA - Malawi, The Fisher King

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 09:30:32 +0200, Trygve Lillefosse
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 01:26:30 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



0ZB0N wrote:

Wong Spins Wildly

July 17, 2008

None of the Rudd Government's global warming fanatics ever thought of
calling carbon dioxide "carbon pollution" until this month.

CO2 is an essential ingredient of the atmosphere without which we and most other life on earth
would not exist.

How the 'greenies' have got to label it a 'poison' is beyond me.

So, if you could stay in a room with 30% CO2, you would happily do so?

It's about having the right amount. Too much CO2 is bad, just as
having too litle CO2 is bad.

--
SEE YA !!!
Trygve Lillefosse
AKA - Malawi, The Fisher King


How do you get the right amount.
For example, if the entire world stopped all CO2 emitting tomorrow
what would happen to the current CO2 density in the atmosphere .
Whats the mechanism that reduces it back to 100 year ago levels
and how long will it take.

On Jul 21, 8:45*am, (Mauried) wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 09:30:32 +0200, Trygve Lillefosse





wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 01:26:30 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

0ZB0N wrote:

Wong Spins Wildly

July 17, 2008

None of the Rudd Government's global warming fanatics ever thought of
calling carbon dioxide "carbon pollution" until this month.

CO2 is an essential ingredient of the atmosphere without which we and most other life on earth
would not exist.

How the 'greenies' have got to label it a 'poison' is beyond me.

So, if you could stay in a room with 30% CO2, you would happily do so?

It's about having the right amount. Too much CO2 is bad, just as
having too litle CO2 is bad.

--
SEE YA !!!
Trygve Lillefosse
AKA - Malawi, The Fisher King

How do you get the right amount.
For example, if the entire world stopped all CO2 emitting tomorrow
what would happen to the current CO2 density in the atmosphere .
Whats the mechanism that reduces it back to 100 year ago levels
and how long will it take

That's artificial. There are natural fluxes and even if all human-
related CO2 emissions ceased it's certain that outgassing from the
seas and the land would continue for some time. Warm waters don't hold
CO2 as well as cooler waters and so until the atmosphere above the
water began to cool substantially outgassing would continue.

Of course, if forests were allowed to recover (because humans had
ceased harvesting them for pulp and paper or stripping them for
combustible material or clear felling them to create space to graze
cattle) then the rate at which CO2 was taken up from the atmosphere
would increase and this would begin to offset other sources of
outgassing.

At the moment, ppmv CO2 is increasing at about 1.5 ppmv per year and
increasing. Some of that is probably the falling ability of the oceans
to act as effective sinks, meaning that CO2 sequestered in the oceans
is being returned at a greater rate. But if anthropogenic sourced
emissions fell to zero we can assume that most of that 1.5ppmv annual
increase would disappear. And if we got the forests growing again,
maybe we could begin reversing the buildup. Within 25 years we might
well begin heading back to where we were in the 1970s, since by then
the oceans' ability to act as sinks would begin to recover.

It's impossible to see how we could achieve this tomorrow though. I
think *the best* we can hope for in practice is to cut per capita
emissions by about 20% on 1990 figures by about 2020, but of course,
by 2020 we will have a lot more people than we did in 1990. And even
that would require an enormous concerted effort -- far more than we
are entitled to thik will happen, more's the pity.

In theory, I believe it would be possible to achieve zero growth in
emissions by 2020 (by which time we will be well the wrong side of 400
ppmv) without anyone being seriously inconvenienced and almost
everyone being better off, but that implies way more collaboration and
political will than I can foresee occurring.

Fran .

"Eeyore" wrote
CO2 is an essential ingredient of the atmosphere without which we and most
other life on earth
would not exist.

CO2 is a metabolic waste like **** or ****.

Now where would plants be without **** or ****?

Apparently Eeyore believes that because plants live in **** and ****, and
use it as their food, that **** and **** are not pollutants.

Perhaps this explains why Eeyore smells like **** and ****.

His excuse to soiling himself is that the Kyoto solution to moving toward
the bathroom, - taking one step - couild not have gotten him to the toilet
and hence all movement away from his bed was unjustified, unworkable, and
would contribute nothing to the sanitary emptying of his colon and bladder.