CO2 Emission Reduction

[Rodion Romanovich]

In fact its not even disputed anymore.

Yeah, global warming is exactly like gravity, eh? Just a theory

By the way, your first "reliable" source is a youtube clip, and the second one is a broken link

[Gawain of Orkeny]

eah, global warming is exactly like gravity, eh? Just a theory

Whats not disputed is that co2 emissions lag temp increases by 800 years.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Whats not disputed is that co2 emissions lag temp increases by 800 years.

Do you refer to the inaccurate ice core samples? Maybe then you're aware that carbon dioxide is lighter than water and will rise through the ice cores, moving the carbon towards a younger age than the actual age. As a result, some ice cores show carbon at the same time or sometimes even after the temperature increase. Additionally, carbon dioxide is expected to increase after the end of an ice age, after ice-bound CO2 is released during melting. Only sources I can find that claim this disproves global warming, are various right wing extremist blogs

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Odd, because the only sources I can find that CO2 doesn't have to do with global warming, are various right wing extremist blog

ell I posted one here but you seem to have missed it.

This is from Real Climate. You wont find a more staunch supporter of global warming

At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

[Rodion Romanovich]

That source doesn't say global warming isn't caused by CO2. It explains to right wing extremist bloggers, pollution supporters, and ostrich-like deniers that CO2 increase are expected after the end of an ice age. That has no relation whatsoever with global warming. That it would have, is an after-construction by right wing extremists.

[Vladimir]

Yeah, global warming is exactly like gravity, eh? Just a theory

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...gy_050228.html

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

...

Dvali would modify the theory of gravity so that the universe becomes self-accelerating, eliminating the need for dark energy. He presented his work here earlier this month at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Dvali borrows from string theory, which states that there are extra, hidden dimensions beyond the four we are familiar with: three directions and time. String theory suggests that gravitons -- hypothetical elementary particles transmitting gravitational forces -- can escape to other dimensions. Dvali says this would cause "leaks" in gravity over cosmic proportions, reducing gravitational pull at larger distances more than expected.

...

[et al]

*sigh*

So sure of themselves are the youth.

[Rodion Romanovich]

[irrelevant bs]

I referred to the effect of falling towards the ground when you jump from a high cliff or building, not to elementary sub-microscopic level forces of the universe. I dare say it's quite certain that falling from a 100 meter high cliff without having anything that increases air resistance will kill you, and that this is not just a theory but a fact. However, I can't prove it for sure for all cases and all time, just like nothing can be proven for sure. Can you even prove that "theory" means what it means? Philosophically, one can ask if one isn't just hearing voices in the head, or imagining the texts one reads, according to solopsism.

In a way, your post is a quite good example of the way of thinking demonstrated by the global warming deniers. An observation shows that under extreme conditions the model presented by the environmental friendly side is wrong in the 100th decimal, and the pollution supporters take that as proof that the entire model is useless. *sigh* These young people, thinking they contribute greatly to a discussion by adding linguistic twists or pointing out an error in the 10th decimal place.

[Vladimir]

yet another

*sigh*

The point is that yes gravity IS still a theory and that your stance on is as firm as the position you're taking here. You're so sure of yourself that you're setting yourself up for failure. Even something such as gravity, which we have been studying for hundreds of years, is still a complex, developing theory. We have been studying global warming and CO2 emissions for a fraction of that time and yet you're just as sure about is as you are of gravity. That's the lesson.

Great response by the way...What's with the smilie wars?

As for me, I'm investing in beachfront property in Colorado. Elk are much easier to hunt when they're trapped on little islands.

[Rodion Romanovich]

The point is that yes gravity IS still a theory

The point is that this is believed by the general consensus of experts to be irrelevant to whether you'll die or not if you jump off a 100 meter cliff without any air resistance-increasing device. However, there's always room for uncertainty - nothing can be proven for sure according to philosophy (heck, not even that can be proven for sure ). If we are to bring the tiresome "nothing can be proven" philosophical discussion into this debate, perhaps we should start by asking ourselves what justification at all we have for questioning solopsism? And continue to ask ourselves how the pollution supporting side can be so sure of it's "facts" and so sure that the opposing side has got all facts wrong

[Vladimir]

And why the pollution supporting side can be so sure of it's "facts" and sure that the opposing side has got all facts wrong

Forget CO2 reduction. We need to reduce the *N*2 O levels.

[Rodion Romanovich]

We need to reduce the *N*2 O levels.

Indeed, and CH4 as well

[Sigurd]

Forget CO2 reduction. We need to reduce the *N*2 O levels.

Sorry M8...

All though N2O is one of the six greenhouse gases we need to reduce, it is CO2 that we emit most.
As an example:
Of the total greenhouse gas emissions Carbon dioxide (CO2) counts for 70%, Methane (CH4) for 18%, Nitrus oxide (N2O) for 8%, Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) for 3%, Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) for 1% and Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) for 0,4%