Carbon Calculator

v.e.r.b.a.l

As someone about to do the whole Around the World thing, I'm a bit conscious that I'm gonna be doing a hell of a lot of damage to the environment flying, busing and training from country-to-country... Supposedly one flight is something equivalent to 8 years of constant driving (probably completely wrong with that fact!!! )

Anyways, I'd like to calculate what my carbon footprint will be for the year. But the problem is, I can't find a website that can calculate this for me? Everything I've found is more for an average of what a person would drive etc. in a year... But this isn't exactly an average year for me and I'd like to be able to calculate how many trees I'm gonna need to plant!

If anyone knows a good site, please let me know!
Thanks!

Neamhshuntasach

Well if you make it to Central or South America i don't think you'll feel so guilty about leaving behind carbon footprints. I think Guatemala alone is single handedly destroying the environment with their buses that are packed everyday. Some airlines allow you to pay a fee to offset your carbon emissions. If you rent a car, go for a hybrid. Don't look to get your bed sheets changed everyday or your towel washed everyday. Small things can help you reduce your footprint if you are conscious of it.

Here's a calculator.

http://www.natureandculture.org/livingforest/calculator1.php

BuffyBot

More suited to the Green Issues forum

derry

Roughly using a plane instead of a car for a single user is better to the inviorement than if you could drive the same distance

How this works is if you did have a road that went from Ireland to Austrarila for example and your car did say 25MPG and you were the only person in the car we call thatr 25MPG per passenger seat
If two people were in the car the the ratio for the car would than be 50MPG per passenger seat and so forth so three equal 75 PG per Passenger seat and 4 makes 100MPG per passenger seat

Aircraft short haul like 737 are roughly 60MPG per passenger seat when the plane is 80% full.The larger planes like Jumbos to Airbus 380 vary from 60MPG per passenger seat to 90 MPG per passenger seat

So the fact the plane uses a crap lot of fuel is not the issue but how many passenger s get shifted for the amount of fuel compared to if they used cars .

Its clear a family of four will use less fuel if they can use a car . A single person will use less fuel flying than using a typical car

Modern ships like ro ro or fancy passenger liners are about 30MPG per passenger seat

Old fashioned slow boat to China stuffed with lots steeerage passengers sleeping on the decks can get 2000MPG per passenger seat

So best is to find a tramp steamer that takes months to get there and sleep cheek buy jowel with lots of third world poverty passengers on the steel decks in the rain to save the planet

Derry

Húrin

Have you ever considered that the idea of a "carbon footprint" is a scam invented by the media in order to personalise a fundamentally political issue?

I've never heard a sensible defence of the idea of individuals regulating their own carbon footprint. It ignores a couple of important facts:

1. The entire economy is unsustainable. Skipping, or offsetting a flight is not going to change that.

2. No matter how much oil you abstain from using, if it has been taken out of the ground, somebody will burn it.

The fact that carbon offsetting does not work is also well-documented. There are only a few years left to prevent runwaway climate change. If a few trees will soak up the amount of carbon dioxide that the flight causes in 100 years, it's useless.

If you actually care about climate change, I would stay at home and join the movement of people who are demanding that the government (at local, national and EU level) treat this problem with the seriousness it deserves.

derry

Húrin wrote: »

Have you ever considered that the idea of a "carbon footprint" is a scam invented by the media in order to personalise a fundamentally political issue?

I've never heard a sensible defence of the idea of individuals regulating their own carbon footprint. It ignores a couple of important facts:

1. The entire economy is unsustainable. Skipping, or offsetting a flight is not going to change that.

2. No matter how much oil you abstain from using, if it has been taken out of the ground, somebody will burn it.

The fact that carbon offsetting does not work is also well-documented. There are only a few years left to prevent runwaway climate change. If a few trees will soak up the amount of carbon dioxide that the flight causes in 100 years, it's useless.

If you actually care about climate change, I would stay at home and join the movement of people who are demanding that the government (at local, national and EU level) treat this problem with the seriousness it deserves.

Really having myself experiened as a teen dire prediction from all the top climate experts of the 1970's era who told me we were rapidlily entering the ice age I ant in any hurry to follow the new fashion they invented our goose is cooked .
I will eer a bit towards choicing lowwer carbon emmiters as that usualy makes the price lowwer sort of logical really less fuel needed cheaper cost bonus less CO2.But if the price is right I migjt even slum it and do the slow boat to China .But CO2 emmisions are lss important than tickeet price for me .

However I sure hope the new neo fachist green brigade bunch dont stop all of us from going on our holidays on a few makey up flimsy data climate projections

Give it another few years and a few more snow falls like USA has this year coldest on record for along time and when our goose isnt cooked the Ice agers will return with vengence to restart that fashion.Sorta like mini skirts long skirts goies through trends if you ask me

Derry

v.e.r.b.a.l

i didn't realise that Jim Corr was a member of boards???

ah no, i think the idea of "being green" as a marketable idea for big companies is good, because for the reason of looking good in the eyes of the public these companies make an effort of reducing their carbon emmissions.

also, the ice age is coming and i'm gonna get me some snow shoes!

mumhaabu

I just crunched the sums and with all my calculations perfectly balanced I have emitted just under 300 tonnes of Co2 in 2008.

It doesn't really bother me but around this time last year I embarked upon the project to measure it which was interesting.

Happy New Year!

derry

mumhaabu wrote: »

I just crunched the sums and with all my calculations perfectly balanced I have emitted just under 300 tonnes of Co2 in 2008.

It doesn't really bother me but around this time last year I embarked upon the project to measure it which was interesting.

Happy New Year!

This year was lower than last year.About ~1000 liters of petrol =0.9 metric tons and thats about ~2.5 tons of carbon .Oil heating 400 liters and electric use but one mediterain foregien holiday by air about 0.75 metric ton makes 5 tons max maybe as low as ~4 tons .

Next year I expect my commuting distance to quadruple as I cant afford this close to the city location .I also intend to do more expedition to Mediterain region this year mostly by air maybe 4 trips and maybe one time using ferry to research something in the mediterain region .So I expect to hit maybe 10 to 20 tons with extra commuting and extra travel. Some years I live in warm countries in the Med and commute to work on bikes and mopeds so some year I used maybe less than 1/2 a ton of carbon .But I for sure if I needed to burn 500 tons woild not be concerned to burn it if it was important eneogh to do so so.Like some envioremental people I know on the cicuit would run up 300 tons a year in air flights alone going to confernces .I recon Ponzan in Poland made at least 100,000 tons of CO2 to the all the thousand of people there .No big deal if you think that Dublin alone with all the tourists who come to look dublin might easy make 1,000,000 tons of CO2.Its still peanuts in terms of the size of the planet .We only exceed the daily CO2 recycle and ocean absorbsion rate at a mere 1/65,000,000 th a day

It going to take a lot to convice me that 1/65,000,000 per day is a threat to to the climate inside thousands of years and is a threat of any sort even if the worst case the projections of heat trapped at less than 0.02% daily can be proved.

But I am a tight wad and hate spending money on cars and fuel for heating or travel etc so I dont think my CO2 will go up that much.Its easy to be CO2 low user when the work is fairtly local and the boss doesn't send you off on planes and worse the income after all the family and depts get it is to low to do more than one or two holidays a year

By the way to do 300 tons you must live in a jet aircraft . What you do commute Dublin to London every day ???

Pilots can do that kinda CO2 but thats there job .Truck drivers can do that also but again thats their job .2006 i probably with the company van for work running around ROI did 50 tonns for the work so not sure ifthat counts


Derry

Húrin

derry wrote: »

Really having myself experiened as a teen dire prediction from all the top climate experts of the 1970's era who told me we were rapidlily entering the ice age I ant in any hurry to follow the new fashion they invented our goose is cooked

This is complete bullsh!t. The top climate experts in the 1970s were not saying that another ice age was just around the corner. There certainly were a few people saying it, but there was nothing like the mass movement of scientific research and public opinion that could be compared with the recent exposure of global warming.

I know you won't be able to prove your statements, and I know you don't care to either. People like you do not care about demonstrating facts or winning the debate; all you want to do is cause as much confusion and delay as possible.

derry

Húrin wrote: »

This is complete bullsh!t. The top climate experts in the 1970s were not saying that another ice age was just around the corner. There certainly were a few people saying it, but there was nothing like the mass movement of scientific research and public opinion that could be compared with the recent exposure of global warming.

I know you won't be able to prove your statements, and I know you don't care to either. People like you do not care about demonstrating facts or winning the debate; all you want to do is cause as much confusion and delay as possible.

Man your spring is wound up;)
First what possible kick can I get from causing as much confusion and delay as possible.
As to the 1970 era I lived through it and took a keen Interest in those subjects.My other peers more into how we would kiss our ass goodbye when the one hour warning before the end of the world came as the Soviets and Yanks would start lobbing the nuclears bombs at each other .

Or could it really be having seen these three card trickster scientists pull the wool over our eyes repeatly in the past in order to get research funds and other political agenda's be simply contributing my experieces in this new meduim the internet that didn't exist in the 1970's era to inform others that its still requires the global warmers more than a few twisted facts to prove that global warming really exists and isn't just another science fashion or trend that will die off in a few years .

If you really want to know whats going on research the footprints of the global warmers in the past and its very enlightning.They were the unfashionable types stuck in dead beat back rooms around lots of universities sub serviant to the ice age trend than ran most all university departments .The Nuclear power in dire straits who had a strong ally in Maggie Thatcher and other strong leaders decided to attach the nuclear flag to global warming as the killer bullet to the makey up global warming solution and the rest is history.All big universities like Eton Cambridge and and so forth were gradulay hijacked and had to tow the new line and the new religion of global warming was born .With some selective help from the nuclear lobby ,the new religion spread and soon true science was sacrificed on the Alter of global warming when it was needed to make science a political animal . From this the IPCC was born which turned non climate specialists into suedo science dictorial neo fachist climate controllers who wish to dictate how much air each person on the planet or joe soaps like me can breathe in our life times because of few selectivly chosen statistical climate trends.

The IPCC has tried everything to remove proof that the medivail warm period where grapes grew in northern England or wheat grew in Green land existed as it ruins thier hokey stick models ..The medival warm period was the most benifitial trend to most of humanity and allowed Europe to become the power house of the world for its time .As a non scientist seeing increasing evidence that any scientists who dare to speak the truth that Global warming is a political movement based on mumbo jumbo facts to suppress the truth that CO2 is most likely a harmless gas and poses no climatic threat to us and global warmers who will use every non science methods to ensure that true science is suppressed .


Now for me I would rather that science stuck to science and chasing the real facts.There are plenty of thing to look at like why sun spots thousands of times larger than our planet might sometime influence our climate.Or why smog from fossil fuels burning can create some dimming and its possible effects .
Prior to IPCC the global warming was still part of the academic debate. After IPCC a non science body with a political agenda global warming left the science arena and became a suedo science religios movement that suppresses real science.

I for one am more interested to see real science truths as if there is a real boggie man climate bomb out there like methane emissions or sun spots whatever then real science might find the truth and might find a solution that really works.A suedo science with political and economic agenda could at best cost us money doing stupid things like building crappy polluting solutions like nuclear power or worse litter the planet with defunk nuclear power solutions that blew up with large areas of the planet uninhabitable for thousands of years .

So I will do my little piece on the net to shows others the debate still rages on and no amount of crap staments that the debate is over from suedo scientists global warmers will convince me that suedo science is a solution .

There are plenty of proven ways to ruin the planet from mega volacanoes huge astroids hits, sun storm plasma ejections and even humans full scale nuclear exchanges you name it without inventing more bizzare ways like global warming


Derry


PS

a bone for to pick on
Whats with all these links stuff.I cant as a joe soap collect file and throw out millions of links especialy as so any links keep changing.
The net is too fluid and unreliable generally to use for linking and is not a libary reference.Acronome NET means "not everything is true".
But as a happy new year 2009 we survived the worst projections that Science threw at us a few years back that there was any hope to pass 2006 or even 2007 from the impending dooooom of global warming here is lecture on the subject.I don't agree with everything he say like he didn't even try to prove if two or three or ten layers of plastic over the fish bowl would cook the goose inside that experment more than one layer of plastic does .At least he sees the writting on the wall that science needs to go back to science and prove its facts and rely less on mumbo jumbo

Anyway enjoy( keep and make your own copy of these as its not for sure this link will last forever)

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

notes on what this lecture is about

Lecture by Professor Richard Muller of the University California, Berkeley. Taken from Lectures 20 and 21 of the spring 2008 webcasts of Physics For Future Presidents. Also known as Descriptive Introduction to Physics. Emphasis is on conceptual understanding, rather than mathematics.

This lecture deals with the physics of climate change, the data on global temperature and carbon dioxide changes, and some potential solutions. Also covered are the many mistakes that can be made, including the trap of exaggeration. He warns against the danger of cherry picking and overstating the case. When people discover that the exaggerated case is not valid, they may dismiss the problem altogether. Professor Muller has researched this topic for many years and has co-authored a book with Gordon MacDonald called "Ice Ages and Astronomical Causes".

The reports of the IPCC are referenced much during this lecture. The full IPCC reports can be found here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assess...

This lecture can also be found here, along with many other lectures:
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_de...

v.e.r.b.a.l

I didn't mean for this thread to turn into a debate about whether global warming was a mass conspiracy invented by the government or not? I believe that global warming is real, but i don't have a bunch of learned-off facts to spout before you all attack me...

simply, does anyone out there (who doesn't think global warming is make-believe) know of an easy way i could calculate what my carbon emissions would be for a year of travelling around the world in planes, buses and cars? Not an average yearly emission...?

Thanks!

gerky

derry wrote: »

Man your spring is wound up;)
First what possible kick can I get from causing as much confusion and delay as possible.
As to the 1970 era I lived through it and took a keen Interest in those subjects.My other peers more into how we would kiss our ass goodbye when the one hour warning before the end of the world came as the Soviets and Yanks would start lobbing the nuclears bombs at each other .

Or could it really be having seen these three card trickster scientists pull the wool over our eyes repeatly in the past in order to get research funds and other political agenda's be simply contributing my experieces in this new meduim the internet that didn't exist in the 1970's era to inform others that its still requires the global warmers more than a few twisted facts to prove that global warming really exists and isn't just another science fashion or trend that will die off in a few years .

If you really want to know whats going on research the footprints of the global warmers in the past and its very enlightning.They were the unfashionable types stuck in dead beat back rooms around lots of universities sub serviant to the ice age trend than ran most all university departments .The Nuclear power in dire straits who had a strong ally in Maggie Thatcher and other strong leaders decided to attach the nuclear flag to global warming as the killer bullet to the makey up global warming solution and the rest is history.All big universities like Eton Cambridge and and so forth were gradulay hijacked and had to tow the new line and the new religion of global warming was born .With some selective help from the nuclear lobby ,the new religion spread and soon true science was sacrificed on the Alter of global warming when it was needed to make science a political animal . From this the IPCC was born which turned non climate specialists into suedo science dictorial neo fachist climate controllers who wish to dictate how much air each person on the planet or joe soaps like me can breathe in our life times because of few selectivly chosen statistical climate trends.

The IPCC has tried everything to remove proof that the medivail warm period where grapes grew in northern England or wheat grew in Green land existed as it ruins thier hokey stick models ..The medival warm period was the most benifitial trend to most of humanity and allowed Europe to become the power house of the world for its time .As a non scientist seeing increasing evidence that any scientists who dare to speak the truth that Global warming is a political movement based on mumbo jumbo facts to suppress the truth that CO2 is most likely a harmless gas and poses no climatic threat to us and global warmers who will use every non science methods to ensure that true science is suppressed .


Now for me I would rather that science stuck to science and chasing the real facts.There are plenty of thing to look at like why sun spots thousands of times larger than our planet might sometime influence our climate.Or why smog from fossil fuels burning can create some dimming and its possible effects .
Prior to IPCC the global warming was still part of the academic debate. After IPCC a non science body with a political agenda global warming left the science arena and became a suedo science religios movement that suppresses real science.

I for one am more interested to see real science truths as if there is a real boggie man climate bomb out there like methane emissions or sun spots whatever then real science might find the truth and might find a solution that really works.A suedo science with political and economic agenda could at best cost us money doing stupid things like building crappy polluting solutions like nuclear power or worse litter the planet with defunk nuclear power solutions that blew up with large areas of the planet uninhabitable for thousands of years .

So I will do my little piece on the net to shows others the debate still rages on and no amount of crap staments that the debate is over from suedo scientists global warmers will convince me that suedo science is a solution .

There are plenty of proven ways to ruin the planet from mega volacanoes huge astroids hits, sun storm plasma ejections and even humans full scale nuclear exchanges you name it without inventing more bizzare ways like global warming


Derry

Do us all a favour and read this NewScientist I think it covers most of your rantpost and is backed up with sound peer reviewed science, not bias.

gerky

v.e.r.b.a.l wrote: »

I didn't mean for this thread to turn into a debate about whether global warming was a mass conspiracy invented by the government or not? I believe that global warming is real, but i don't have a bunch of learned-off facts to spout before you all attack me...

simply, does anyone out there (who doesn't think global warming is make-believe) know of an easy way i could calculate what my carbon emissions would be for a year of travelling around the world in planes, buses and cars? Not an average yearly emission...?

Thanks!

Don't worry v.e.r.b.a.l a good few of the threads here tend to go this way:rolleyes:, try this http://www.resurgence.org/resources/carbon-calculator.html if you scroll down you'll see a good section for planes,trains,buses ect.. hopefully it'll cover what your looking for.

theCzar

I'm personal of the opinion that the contribution of people going on holidays by plane to the CO2 emmisions is negligible beside the world and its mother commuting for an hour and half every day in heavy traffic.

I'd be interested to calculate by CO2 footprint. In 2008 I travelled about 80,000 miles by plane, mostly long haul. I work aboard a ship that burns 20000-30000 litres of fuel a week. But I have no daily commute, so I think that probably offsets my air travel completely, and probably saves some emmisions. I don't know if I can really take the boats fuel consumption on my shoulders any more than a factory worker (or indeed, office worker) takes their corporate emmisons on.

To add my two cents to the never ending debate re. Global Warming.
1) No scientist, regardless of his claims to the contrary has anything more than a fleeting grasp of how the planets environment works/changes. Its simply to large and complicated to model.

2) Scientists rely on funding to exist, this mostly comes from commercial sources with a (spoken or unspoken) desire to reach a certain answer. Environmental lobbies finance pro Global Warming papers. Polluters finance anti-global warming papers. All claim to be defintive and all say different things. As long as scientific research relies on this pay-the-piper-call-the-tune approach, nearly all reports can be binned.

3) The one thing it is reasonable to assume (IMO), industrial emmisions (CO2 etc.) have an effect an the planets system and we should not poke and prod something we don't understand therefore I believe lowering emmisions is advisable even without proof that the contrary is disasterous.

So we can all agree with that I think? No, didn't think so.

derry

gerky wrote: »

Do us all a favour and read this NewScientist I think it covers most of your rantpost and is backed up with sound peer reviewed science, not bias.

I have been reading new scientist off and on since 1978.It is a magazine and isn't the final say on any subject as it often reports both sides of any debate.So I wont bore you with finding some other science paper in other magazines that says that evidence for global warming is weak

However when one trawls through the link you supply we come across this quote supplied below the typical talk down from on high to us joe soaps we will solve all you problems just switch off your brains and trust us with your future needs to stay at home at shiver from cold to save the planet

newscientist wrote:

Of course, few people have the time to wade through the scientific literature weighing up the evidence and trying to work out which findings have or have not stood up to scrutiny. Fortunately, when it comes to climate change, there is an organisation that does exactly this for us: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The one single organization that can be shown to be a goose stepping neo fachist enviromental truth distorter is the IPCC which uses every possible political thug methods to supress true science debates on what is a important subject the climate and any possible changes to it natural or man made.

I chose not to switch off my brain to suit the IPCC political agenda mostly controlled by non scientists who know nothing about climates of any sort

Derry

derry

theCzar wrote: »

I'm personal of the opinion that the contribution of people going on holidays by plane to the CO2 emmisions is negligible beside the world and its mother commuting for an hour and half every day in heavy traffic.

I'd be interested to calculate by CO2 footprint. In 2008 I travelled about 80,000 miles by plane, mostly long haul. I work aboard a ship that burns 20000-30000 litres of fuel a week. But I have no daily commute, so I think that probably offsets my air travel completely, and probably saves some emissions. I don't know if I can really take the boats fuel consumption on my shoulders any more than a factory worker (or indeed, office worker) takes their corporate emissions on.

To add my two cents to the never ending debate re. Global Warming.
1) No scientist, regardless of his claims to the contrary has anything more than a fleeting grasp of how the planets environment works/changes. Its simply to large and complicated to model.

2) Scientists rely on funding to exist, this mostly comes from commercial sources with a (spoken or unspoken) desire to reach a certain answer. Environmental lobbies finance pro Global Warming papers. Polluters finance anti-global warming papers. All claim to be defintive and all say different things. As long as scientific research relies on this pay-the-piper-call-the-tune approach, nearly all reports can be binned.

3) The one thing it is reasonable to assume (IMO), industrial emmisions (CO2 etc.) have an effect an the planets system and we should not poke and prod something we don't understand therefore I believe lowering emmisions is advisable even without proof that the contrary is disasterous.

So we can all agree with that I think? No, didn't think so.

To try to answer the question what 80,000 miles a year makes in CO2 we could find a myriad of carbon calculators

some do try supply reasonable estimates and others tend to have out of date info or maybe a slant that suits thier agenda like seriosly warped information typicaly aircraft is shown in a bad light

Her is an example taken from the link

http://www.resurgence.org/resources/...alculator.html

which Gerky chose to supply

So before I use the calculator supplied the basic information is most oil fuels will be approx ~2.5 KG of CO2 for every one KG of oil burnt


If we figure NTSB (national transport and safety board fuel figure show MPG per seat passenger on aircraft vary from 40MPG per seat passenger to 90MPG per seat passenger on commersal aircraft 80% capacity ) then we can say ~50MPGper seat passenger is a good number to chose

If we assume a car is about 25MPG and we are talking one person in the car then we can say a car if it existed to transport you from the ship to where you live would use more fuel that a plane would.

Anyway when we plug the numbers in we would find that 80000 miles in a car will make ~33 tons of CO2 .Using commersail planes will make ~17 tons of C02

maths for a car at 25MPG for 80,000 miles
80000miles / 25 mpg = 3200 gallons UK *4.55L= 14560 liters *0.9 fuel density = 13104 KG *2.5 CO2= 32760 KG of CO2 =~32.7 tons

The calculator suggest variable ~2.3 for petrol and ~2.7 for diesel fuel so I used ~2.5 as half way as it depends on if your car is petrol or diesel

maths for a plane at 50 MPG for 80,000 miles
80000miles / 50 mpg = 1600 gallons UK *4.55L= 7280 liters *0.9 fuel density = 6552 KG *2.5 CO2= 16380 KG of CO2 =~16.3 tons




The calculator http://www.resurgence.org/resources/...alculator.html

Results for 80000 miles for a car is ~28 tons. This suggests the variable they use for cars is more like ~30MPG for the car they chose to use.

For planes they confuse the piture with hours in the air .Taking an average of 500MPH for planes that makes 80000 miles to be 160 hours flying .The number they come up with is ~70 tons of CO2

That suggests the variable they use is closer to ~15 MPG per passenger seat

In the 1960 when fuel was cheap and primitive jet engines existed ~15 MPG per passenger seat was a correct estimate in the good old days .In todays world of expensive fuel where most gas gusseling jets are scrapped or re-engined with newwer engines to supply easily double those numbers we have to ask what is the agenda of this carbon calculator against aircraft or are they just innocently a mere ~40 years out of date

Needless to say they simplify the train and bus with a simple 8 tons of CO2 to go 80000 miles suggesting that trains and busses variable of 0.1 are returning ~100 MPG per passenger seat .
Other carbon calculators would place busses as more than ~ 100 to more like ~200 MPG per passenger seat.Trains vary a lot from fast trains at ~50 MPG per passenger seat to slow trains at more than ~200 MPG per passenger seat

I don't have any issues to say using busses or trains will often be the least CO2 emmiters if you can handle the slower travel speeds


Slow boats to china win every time for least CO2 emmisions


derry

NewApproach

I did a calculation thing on the web and I produced 32.58 tonnes of CO2.

Is this alot?

theCzar

Thanks for that, the difference in interpretation of the facts is interesting. 15MPG sounds too low. About half the miles were by 747 which afaik has the best fuel effeciency/per passenger, with the remainder either A340's or 777's which I think probably are not a lot worse, and in my experience the flights were all at least 90% full.

Húrin

v.e.r.b.a.l wrote: »

I didn't mean for this thread to turn into a debate about whether global warming was a mass conspiracy invented by the government or not?

It's not a matter of choice. Derry deliberately destroys every thread in this forum with unsubstantiated rambling about green fascists/hysteria or general denial of climate change.

derry

Húrin wrote: »

It's not a matter of choice. Derry deliberately destroys every thread in this forum with unsubstantiated rambling about green fascists/hysteria or general denial of climate change.

Just cause a thread doesn't follow the drum beat of the Global warmers doesn't mean iis destroyed.The reason the OP posede the question is there is out there a debate raging on CO2 and he wants to know his CO2 foot print


I think telling the OP

H&#250 wrote: »

If you actually care about climate change, I would stay at home and join the movement of people who are demanding that the government (at local, national and EU level) treat this problem with the seriousness it deserves.

smack to me of neo fashist dictate desire that the OP is quilty of the most henous crime destroyng the planet and should stay at home and hang his head and stick to reading books shivering in the cold and become a eco goose stepper attacking SUVs

I give the numbers to work on and say slow boat to China uses less fuel makes less CO2,Planes and cars use whatever CO2 so he can figure what will produce less CO2

Neamhshuntasach the number 2 responder threw in his slant on the story
He did supply a calculator
http://www.natureandculture.org/livi...alculator1.php

So from response number 2 onwards the replies were all a debate and the pour wrath on the head of the OP wasn't a one way street cause I didn't follow the drum beat

Well tough just cause the type of enviormental stuff that interests me is why is the water in Galway undrinkable at times is for me more important and relevant than wishy washy CO2 which divert envioremntal funds away from real in your face pollution.But the CO2 brigade only want the debate is over and everybody should stay at home to reign supreme :pac::pac:




Re theCzar

80000 miles CO2 in a car 25MPG or a plane with the carbon calaculator
http://www.natureandculture.org/livi...alculator1.php supplied by
Neamhshuntasach comes in closer to my manula calculations

car is 29.65 tons (single person user )

plane is 16.33 tons


The 777 and A340 are actually very good .Not all jumbos are so good The short versions or the older versions can be a lot less than modern 777 or A340.
The air lingus A3xx might be A330 can reach sometimes get as high as 90mpg per passenger seat .The most modern 777 is nearly as good.When you factor in everything they all probably do at least 60MPG per passenger seat.The industry average seems to be 50MPG per passenger seat to cover some planes are not full or are older or on short haul which uses more fuel.Jumbo depending on types go from 50MPG per passenger seat to more than 70MPG per passenger seat

A 777 short version will burn between 6 tons a hour level flight at the begining of the flight if stuffed stupid heavy and later drop to 4 tons as toward the end of the flight whenit is lighter .It will use ~18 tons a hour for take off which last about ~30 minutes.The last half hour in the glide phase might be more like 2 tons an hour . We can ball park say 5 tons an hour for the 777 short which is probably much the same for medium and long versions .So depending on it is a 250 seat version or 300 seat whatever divide it out and often comes out at 70MPG per passenger seat .
Tricky to figure it all out exactly as the Airlines hide the information as that is commesal information.Different airlines will have more or less seats for each plane

Best I can tell no airline can afford to continue to use planes for long haul returning less than ~40MPG per passenger seat

So for you your 80000 air miles making ~16 tons on the calculators is probably more like ~12 tons as its all long haul with more fuel efficient planes


Its all real world stuff really.the airlines don't want to shout they are so fuel efficient as then you would think why is the ticket so much say E500 to cross the Atlantic when the fuel used was less than E100 euros


Ball park numbers is less than 40 gallon UK per passenger to cross the Atlantic 2000 miles makes 80 gallons UK round trip 4000 miles.Jet fuel is ball park $2 a UK gallon as there is no tax on it so ball park E100 euro of fuel is used per passenger to do round trip across the Atlantic (in july 2008 it would have been something like tree times more expensive in fuel)

It also explains why Ryan air planes can charge average ~E40 euros a passenger a flight and have costs probably ~E20 a passenger average .It the ~60MPG per passenger seat from a smaler plane like the 737 and the cheaper kerozene that makes air travel cheaper faster and often less polluting than using a car ( if the passenger is a single person.)

Derry

gerky

derry wrote:

I have been reading new scientist off and on since 1978.It is a magazine and isn't the final say on any subject as it often reports both sides of any debate.So I wont bore you with finding some other science paper in other magazines that says that evidence for global warming is weak

Everything in that is backed up by peer reviewed scientific research, I don't think I've ever seen you refer to any peer reviewed paper.

derry wrote:

However when one trawls through the link you supply we come across this quote supplied below the typical talk down from on high to us joe soaps we will solve all you problems just switch off your brains and trust us with your future needs to stay at home at shiver from cold to save the planet

Funny how I must of missed the part where it said all that.

derry wrote:

The one single organization that can be shown to be a goose stepping neo fachist enviromental truth distorter is the IPCC which uses every possible political thug methods to supress true science debates on what is a important subject the climate and any possible changes to it natural or man made.

I chose not to switch off my brain to suit the IPCC political agenda mostly controlled by non scientists who know nothing about climates of any sort

It must be great to rant without feeling the need to back your rants up with any proper research.

The IPCC don't do the research they just compile the properly reviewed research and base their reports on it.

I would like you to point out how the current people in the ipcc, know nothing about the climate at all.

Is there any chance in future you could shorten and bring your post to the point without a big long rant.


This is thread is gone completely off topic now.

BendiBus

derry wrote: »

The air lingus A3xx might be A330 can reach sometimes get as high as 90mpg per passenger seat

This, and all the other calculations in your post, need to factor in a typical load factor of about 70% if you want fuel consumption per passenger.

derry

BendiBus wrote: »

This, and all the other calculations in your post, need to factor in a typical load factor of about 70% if you want fuel consumption per passenger.

Not really.The excepted Industry standard that avaition world wide uses is ~80%.I have sometimes in older stats seen 75% but that was changed I soppose since cheaper operators like North Eastern airlines , Easy Jet or Ryan air hit the scene.

Best I can tell most planes will break even on ~55% loading . Most airlines companies are not going to keep running a route for longer than a year if the load factors drop below ~75% annually.

Now if you want to prove Aer Lingus is running at ~70% that would be different issue as there are many airlines operating from ROI such as Delta and Ryan air and best I can tell they operate at the ~80% mark


However if you want to go of on a Bendybus reinvent the industry standards go ahead but the Industry most likely wont pay any attension to your new data

Factors to consider also are the seat arrangement such as first class and club class.Some airlines can have more economy seats and fly more people with a 75% load factor while other using the exact same plane might have 25% less seats and fly at ~95% loads factors .Total amount of passengers is the same .I presume the stats are averaged out over any different airlines and may different aircrafts and routes and comes out at ~80%


Derry

BendiBus

Sorry, meant to say 80% :rolleyes:

My point is that if you're trying to calculate the CO2 cost of a flight for an individual person then fuel consumption per seat-km is not a good metric. Consumption per passenger-km is a better way to do it.

So you need to adjust your figures by a factor of 0.8 (or 1.25 depending on the particular equation!)

For comparison one needs to factor in a load factor of about 25% (a random assumption 1.2 people in a 5 seat vehicle??) for car travel

Húrin

derry wrote: »

Just cause a thread doesn't follow the drum beat of the Global warmers doesn't mean is destroyed.The reason the OP posede the question is there is out there a debate raging on CO2 and he wants to know his CO2 foot print

Trying to turn every thread in a forum into a repetitive debate about the same topic is destructive.

smack to me of neo fashist dictate desire that the OP is quilty of the most henous crime destroyng the planet and should stay at home and hang his head and stick to reading books shivering in the cold and become a eco goose stepper attacking SUVs

That is quite clearly not what I said, you cretin.

I'm not trying to guilt trip (or should it be 'quilt trip'?) the OP about flying around the world. I don't care really. I'm just trying to say that offsetting is a pretty pointless way of doing anything about the climate.

derry

BendiBus wrote: »

Sorry, meant to say 80% :rolleyes:

My point is that if you're trying to calculate the CO2 cost of a flight for an individual person then fuel consumption per seat-km is not a good metric. Consumption per passenger-km is a better way to do it.

So you need to adjust your figures by a factor of 0.8 (or 1.25 depending on the particular equation!)

For comparison one needs to factor in a load factor of about 25% (a random assumption 1.2 people in a 5 seat vehicle??) for car travel

The problem is many sites that do carbon calculators are USA based and do MPG .Then they convert this to one liter gets so many kilometers.In Europe the system is so many liters to each 100 kilometers .If you look the official Airbus site for the A380 it says 3 liters for each 100 kilometers per passenger seat which is ball park ~90 MPG per passenger seat assuming the industry standard of 80% of the seats are in use for each flight.Its a nightmare trying to do both sytems so I just use MPG and let others figure out the metrics if they wish .


Cars are tricky as most cars would probaly be ~4 seaters for practical purpusoses .Most cars would for long jouneys be ~3 people and for local traffic often one person .

Assuming the average car is 30 MPG or 9 liters to 100 kilometers we can say that tree people in a car on a long journey is the same fuel consumption per seat passenger as a passenger on a airbus A380


For the benifit of this thread I assume the OP is going solo but give him the facts so if he decided to make a group of four they can look at other solutions that use less fuel per head which equals less CO2 emmisions

Feel free to input the metric numbers if you have them to hand as some users operate only in metric.
I operate both sytems of measures but prefer for reasearch mostly to use imperical for the threads in english spreaking forums.In EU contental forums I use only metric .


Derry

derry

Húrin wrote: »

Trying to turn every thread in a forum into a repetitive debate about the same topic is destructive.


Quote:
smack to me of neo fashist dictate desire that the OP is quilty of the most henous crime destroyng the planet and should stay at home and hang his head and stick to reading books shivering in the cold and become a eco goose stepper attacking SUVs



That is quite clearly not what I said, you cretin.

I'm not trying to guilt trip (or should it be 'quilt trip'?) the OP about flying around the world. I don't care really. I'm just trying to say that offsetting is a pretty pointless way of doing anything about the climate.

ooochhh touchy.
The purpose of stateing this is to show that although your endevours look to you to be saving the planet to others they can come across as being part of some world movement which wishes to dictate who can go where and when and how much carbon they would be allowed to produce.


yes we can say you did state that ofsetting is pointless.Funny eneogh I agree with that as 50 years later when the tree is cut down and burned the result is waste of time.

Its the final stement

H&#250 wrote: »

If you actually care about climate change, I would stay at home and join the movement of people who are demanding that the government (at local, national and EU level) treat this problem with the seriousness it deserves.

This is loaded statement .For some its a dictate from on high.For others its a mere informational . Some might think well Hurin is a bit touched.Yet again other might figure Hurin is just a bit too passionate about his trip CO2.For others its a red flag insult.For others like me it looks more like the mantra that comes from the new religion according to fashion invented science to keep climate scientists employed that our goose is cooked and so I need to boomerang back this makey up green flag package and return it in its true colors flag the Swatika which wish to make a new "living space" with the green goose stepping boots .As I always say the young germans of 1940 figured they were the good guys making the world a better place for everybody who conformed to thier logic .The new save the planet logic is we should on some makey up green science dictate decide who should go where when and how all to save the planet . Chances are the planet doesnt need saving.There might be case for some tweaking things a bit to reduce local polution. But there is mounting evidence that CO2 is a harmless trace gas and we need to figure real problems like why the lakes in Ireland are polluted to hell and undrinkable. To solve those problems scientists would have to really do a days work and couldn't get the big wads of money that Global warming gives them.
Its more like the king has no cloths stuff really

Derry

theCzar

in reference to celebrities trying to block 3rd runway at Heathrow

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=58586960#post58586960

Húrin

derry wrote: »

ooochhh touchy.

Believe me, I write my posts in mockery rather than anger.

The purpose of stateing this is to show that although your endevours look to you to be saving the planet to others they can come across as being part of some world movement which wishes to dictate who can go where and when and how much carbon they would be allowed to produce.

I never use the term "saving the planet". The planet doesn't need saving. Civilisation does.

There is indeed a world-wide movement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the most egalitarian way possible. In other words, the movement ideally favours a human right to emit carbon dioxide, that is equal to all people. That's why people like me think it is more important that Africans can cook food and refrigerate their medicines than it is for westerners (including me) to fly aeroplanes. It appears that it is necessary to limit the amount of carbon dioxide that humanity can emit each year. Thus CO2 becomes a resource to be competed for.

I don't care if people travel all they want. I'm not against people travelling. The problem is the emissions associated with particular vehicles that are used. However, attempts to obstruct the movement that are not based on scientific and social necessity, but wishful thinking and financial interests annoy me.

Essentially, yes, there is a world movement that wishes to dictate how much carbon dioxide we can produce. This is not based on an opposition to industry, but rather a well-considered opinion that the science indicates that current levels of emissions are not favourable to the future economy.

If this movement disgusts you, perhaps you have some idea of how much the sceptic/denial movement that wishes to sacrifice the livelihoods of the poor (who are being hit hard by climate change) in the name of the GDP of the west, disgusts me.

Would you also oppose rationing food in times of war, so that all could have access to food?

This is loaded statement .For some its a dictate from on high.For others its a mere informational . Some might think well Hurin is a bit touched.Yet again other might figure Hurin is just a bit too passionate about his trip CO2.For others its a red flag insult.

I am not in any sort of high place to dictate order to people. I'm a joe soap too! I'm simply suggesting that the OP take his concern for the climate to its honest and logical conclusion. The emissions of this individual's trip does not concern me. Thousands of people fly everyday. Not getting on a plane will not stop it from flying and emitting CO2. Thus political action is needed if one is really serious about climate change.

For others like me it looks more like the mantra that comes from the new religion according to fashion invented science to keep climate scientists employed that our goose is cooked

OK, this is another common statement that annoys me. I am a Christian, so I hope you see how ridiculous a claim that climate change is a new religion sounds to me.

If you think there are a lot of paycheques tied up with mitigating climate change, how many are there that benefit from debunking climate change? I see the sceptic movement as a justification for keeping people like Michael O'Leary, cement makers, and coal miners, employed.

and so I need to boomerang back this makey up green flag package and return it in its true colors flag the Swatika which wish to make a new "living space" with the green goose stepping boots .As I always say the young germans of 1940 figured they were the good guys making the world a better place for everybody who conformed to thier logic.

Congratulations, you win the Godwin award. The Nazis were up for killing millions of people who did not conform to them.

I see much less respect for human life in the climate sceptic movement than in the climate change movement. The sceptics do not care if the scientific consensus happens to be right and the poor suffer.

The new save the planet logic is we should on some makey up green science dictate decide who should go where when and how all to save the planet

Climate science that affirms the man-made global warming hypothesis is not makey up.

Chances are the planet doesnt need saving.

How much of a chance are you willing to take?

There might be case for some tweaking things a bit to reduce local polution.

Which is generally an entirely different issue to global warming.

But there is mounting evidence that CO2 is a harmless trace gas

lol

and we need to figure real problems like why the lakes in Ireland are polluted to hell and undrinkable.

There's no reason why both cannot be done. Governments are supposed to multi-task.

To solve those problems scientists would have to really do a days work and couldn't get the big wads of money that Global warming gives them.

Why not? If it was decided that lake pollution was so important to pour loads of money into researching it, then plenty of scientists could get rich off it. Mostly not climate scientists though.

It's this petulant, anti-scientist conspiracy theorising that discredits the sceptic movement for me.

derry

Húrin wrote: »

Believe me, I write my posts in mockery rather than anger.

....snip ... so your whole debate is this logic mockery

H&#250 wrote: »

I never use the term "saving the planet". The planet doesn't need saving. Civilisation does.

So Civilisation needs saving more than the planet.Which one you preferr to save the most .The Irish one from inner cities.Maybe the Myan from central America..Or the tribal Civilisation in south American jungles.Maybe even the gooose steppers Civilisation from the past

H&#250 wrote: »

There is indeed a world-wide movement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the most egalitarian way possible. In other words,....yada yada

.....snip..... so there is a world movent and it seems to me to be yet more rants on your quazi religious agenda from this group
[/COLOR]

H&#250 wrote: »

but wishful thinking and financial interests annoy me.

.....snip.....
now we see what really get up your goat is the richer feckers so you drape youself in the third world poor bleeding heart trip we should share something cloths

H&#250 wrote: »

Essentially, yes, there is a world movement that wishes to dictate how much carbon dioxide we can produce. This is not based on an opposition to industry,

.....snip.....
So are you saying industry will decide DICATE how much carbon is made

H&#250 wrote: »

but rather a well-considered opinion that the science indicates that current levels of emissions are not favourable to the future economy.

.....snip.....

or is this new demi god science going to dictateunder the umbrella of indicate


better still just forget the science debate it outlived it purpose and on this flimsy quazi science stats lets dictate everything green steppers policy only

H&#250 wrote: »

If this movement disgusts you, perhaps you have some idea of how much the sceptic/denial movement that wishes to sacrifice the livelihoods of the poor (who are being hit hard by climate change)

drape youself in the third world poor bleeding heart trip to try to prove a quazi religious argument that my cars tail pipe emmisions are impacting and strving the pooor of the world

H&#250 wrote: »

in the name of the GDP of the west, disgusts me.

.....snip.....
now we see what really get up your goat

it the ID the me statement what pisses you that counts it pisses you off and not the facts like the real third woulrd who might be suffering from something

H&#250 wrote: »

Would you also oppose rationing food in times of war, so that all could have access to food?





drape youself in the third world poor bleeding heart trip .We should share something cloths .Realy when there is no shortage of air .There still isnt conclusive proof of CO2 is bad or dangerous gas unless you hang with the brainwashed brigade who belive its a fact

H&#250 wrote: »

I am not in any sort of high place to dictate order to people.

Thank god for small blessing

H&#250 wrote: »

I'm a joe soap too!

me too!

H&#250 wrote: »

I'm simply suggesting that the OP take his concern for the climate to its honest and logical conclusion.

in light of the above all you can do now is suggest but if you were in power would you dictate

H&#250 wrote: »

The emissions of this individual's trip does not concern me. Thousands of people fly everyday. Not getting on a plane will not stop it from flying and emitting CO2.

statement of reality to look good to cushion the line below

H&#250 wrote: »

Thus political action is needed if one is really serious about climate change.

Good call to the mantra .Green goose stepping party needed to dictate who can breath CO2

H&#250 wrote: »

OK, this is another common statement that annoys me. I am a Christian, so I hope you see how ridiculous a claim that climate change is a new religion sounds to me.

I am a christian too even practice it but so are ~90% of ROI????? .

Lots of quacky religions let you be two or more religions .Even Stalin let christians practice in WW2 when it suited him to keep moral up as the war was going baddly at that time . Some brain washed christians even figured it could be possible to have a christian communist country.

THis referes to when science is reduced to if you dont believe these makey up numbers and you are a denialist
and out side the fold then climate change becomes more a religious movement than science .

H&#250 wrote: »

If you think there are a lot of paycheques tied up with mitigating climate change, how many are there that benefit from debunking climate change?

Lets face it the planet has always got an axe to grind .The oil industry want burn oil burn .The nuclear indusrty wants to cap oil burning emmisions and make nuclear power stations in everybodys back gardens.
The control freaks having lost Nazizm and Communizm and fachizm want to control the show who breaths with a new green quazi science and so the list is long as your arm.Scientists are human and some sell thier souls to the highest bidder. Us plebs are caught in the cross fire and have to figure where is the truth is at.For me IPCC is a political movement dressed in quazi science garb

H&#250 wrote: »

I see the sceptic movement as a justification for keeping people like Michael O'Leary, cement makers, and coal miners, employed.

yes we know rich feckers disgust you......

Well they piss me too..... but I admit it and dont throw stones at them much as I would like too....The reality is those guy can claim to be leaders of Industry and wealth generators for Civilisation
and they figure they are good guys break no laws and feed and cloth many families with the work they supply

H&#250 wrote: »

Congratulations, you win the Godwin award. The Nazis were up for killing millions of people who did not conform to them.

Throwing a frizzbee

H&#250 wrote: »

I see much less respect for human life in the climate sceptic movement than in the climate change movement. The sceptics do not care if the scientific consensus happens to be right and the poor suffer.

Yes the climate change sceptics
denialistst types
who figure if the poor can have lorries to transport goods like food ,farm machinery to farm better in thier regions and Industry to supply work and all the trapping of the west so then they wont need our handouts anymore as they will be self suffient.
Bummer that its all risks to on hold because some CO2 goose stepping enviorementalists say everything must stop because a few scientists have a few quacky ideas.Yes The quilt just drips of the sceptics denialistst types

H&#250 wrote: »

Climate science that affirms the man-made global warming hypothesis is not makey up.

Yet another link to some agenda driven source

derry wrote:

Chances are the planet doesnt need saving.

derry wrote:

There might be case for some tweaking things a bit to reduce local polution.

H&#250 wrote: »

Which is generally an entirely different issue to global warming.

Not really clean air to breath often means less CO2 emmisions and less particulates and less nasty emissions like S02 or Nitros oxides or Ozones all nasty gasses emmited from burning fuels all which can make local areas hostile for humans to live in .Try cycling Dublin your breathing a sewer pit there

H&#250 wrote: »

How much of a chance are you willing to take?

I figure a 1/65,000,000 of extra C02 added to the atmosphere per day (from all sources human and nature )infers to me the chance for anything bad to happen inside a few thousand years is not likely .However that statistic you wont find in any books I had to work it out myself so It might be 1/900,000,000 per day for human inputs for CO2 and the rest of CO is natural sources so the risk for the world I figure are pretty low as lots of other sources show litle or no extra heating from raised CO2 levels.

even if my numbers are out a tad like 50% it unlikey to change the story

derry wrote:

But there is mounting evidence that CO2 is a harmless trace gas

H&#250 wrote: »

lol

WHOOP WHOOOP gotcha

I read pro CO2 and anti CO2 stuff and a whole lot of other things

The brainwashed belivers chose only to reinforce with only viewing all information that agrees with that agenda

tactics then become LOL riducule and lablels like denialists

Ask yourself where did all those 1970's treehuggers in Germany go after the all the Black forest in imminent danger to die of from acid rain go when the trees didnt die off as predicted .Needing a new trip they teamed up on the CO2 trip and the forests of germany went on to live happily ever after.

New Wagons roll into town every few decades and belivers often brain washed all tie themselfs to that wagon and only admit they are wrong when the show is well and truely dead.


The CO2 agenda has already had to change colors from global warming to climate change so they then explain away why cold snaps could show climate change was happening

Last kicks of the dieng horse when it become climate change as the climate on the planet always did change

derry wrote:

and we need to figure real problems like why the lakes in Ireland are polluted to hell and undrinkable.

H&#250 wrote: »

There's no reason why both cannot be done. Governments are supposed to multi-task.

This regime does nethier or as little as they have to .Colleges and universities here are heavily slanted towards obscure science like CO2 as it fairly cheapo sample the local air and write papers on it and pocket the profit and get to fly away to forgien parts like Poland and get the junkets with speeches

Lake research is pricy get boats and deep lake samples lots of marine life sorting testing and spend all the budget on it and profit is thin and get a day trip to RTE with fre galss of water all to speak to the news team for a one minute slot


Now for a scientist who likes the junkets who you gonna chose

The government scientists are sworn to keeping the true facts secret and will be forcedd to distort the filthy lake reading to suit the Regimes slant the lake is perfectly clean

But joe soaps and unpaid or volinteer scientists with no funding are taking samples from the irish lakes using thier own equipment and using thier own money and proving with samples you cant trust the embedded regime and the embedded academic institutiions to do the real work that needs doing


Now thats science real science

derry wrote:

To solve those problems scientists would have to really do a days work and couldn't get the big wads of money that Global warming gives them.

H&#250 wrote: »

Why not? If it was decided that lake pollution was so important to pour loads of money into researching it, then plenty of scientists could get rich off it.

awnswer above

H&#250 wrote: »

Mostly not climate scientists though.

You said it

H&#250 wrote: »

It's this petulant, anti-scientist conspiracy theorising that discredits the sceptic movement for me.

boomerang frizbee time

It's this petulant, anti-scientist conspiracy theorising that discredits the climate change movement for me.

If I gave you that answer then I would be the same as you but just on another team which shows that remark is just tit for tat and not deeply thought out


For every well paid scientist on the circuit who sold out to the big payers and get to hijack the media with big bucks there is a sea of unpaid and volter or low paid scientists beavering away at important issues such as is CO2 a gren house forcing agent of significance .

Those same methods worked well in the past when science had a theory that CFC gasses were significant Ozone gas depleter.With very little world media hype the CFC production sources were removed from nearly all the world and ozone depletion was shown to exist after the CFC were removed.CFC removal did step on some big toes which threw up some smoke screens but through a steady on the helm blow by blow science arguments the science argument was accepted as a fact and not as a religion.

But a bucket load of well paid mostly German scientists got it baddly wrong about the damage to the black forest in Germany which reached near religious zeal properties in the 1970's era .



At the moment the CO2 debate rages along with other back room debates.The other back room debates are going through thier tests quitely and with little fusss and those who back the wrong hourse argument have a few ruffled feathers and go off to find another theory to work on

It when big toes are stood on like nuclear or oil companies that it becomes a media circus and the wads of cash can buy up some soul selling scientists.

CO2 is a wonderful bounty of a cash cow for lots of parties.The tree huggers win with this new enemy.The Nuclear power stand to win from this over oil.The control freaks can try to hijack this circus so that green goose steppers can emerge on top to stone to death SUV's.Colleges get to bump up science student grants and funds nothing like the bogey man threat to twist money out of regimes and big busness.

In the mean time CO2 subjects gets the lion share of science and the other real world vital science like why the water in the lakes in Galway is undrinkable suffer from lack of funds.


The IPCC when it arrived like a bolt out of the blue goose stepping it way through the debate on CO2 removed this quiant deabate in academic circles from the realm of science to something else like a religious or political debate.


It took a while for the back room scientists to regroup and see what wonderfull new information that IPCC suddenly came in possesion to sift through it and then try to restart the academic debate.The IPCC using goose stepping solutions has tryed the other non science methods of the dabate is over.

The many joe soaps like me who respect and live with the imperfect methods that science uses to solve problems like CFC and black forest were happy enough to let this CO2 deabate rage within academic circles .

The many joe soaps like me who can spot a new rising goose stepping neo fachist movement or quazi religious movement hijacking a science debate cant rest on our larels and let these punk heads movements take away the right for true science to debate things freely.



So instead to tell me link so and so come back with experments like the candle in the water trick.Thier is interesting things still to seen in that experment.
Or figure out waht would the be the total amount of CO2 dumped into the ocean if we burnt up all known Fuel sources



My calculations show we would add 1/5,000,000 CO2 to the oceans .That is CO2 PPM for the ocean would rise to would at least 5 PPM or 200,000 PPB parts per maths billion or if you used money billion 200 PPBshort billion




Now on sheer size of ocean the ocean looks like even if all that CO2 made a acid the chances that a few parts per billion of acid were in the sea water that sea acidy level rises were not likely.However another group might show that water tends to move and mix in sheet layers like a cake and that the surface water might be capable to become to acidic for nature


Now you have made academic debate between chemists naturalists climate science geoligists marine bioligists and possibly some surfers who want to sue carbon emmision agents for the acid burns they claim to suffer from.

So whats the guessing when the media Circus hype from CO2 in the atmosphere stops that the then new target will be save the acidic beaches and beach bums movement

So It merely goes to prove that even joe soaps can do experments and throw up intersting points to ponder and some points to ponder get more reasearch and help solve problems and most points to ponder just fizzle out

CO emmisions cult looks more like its one that will fizzle out possibly because we all get our goose cooked when the chain reaction heat build up goes to full tilt but I suspect more like it fissles out because the reseach money got to saving beach bums


Derry

Húrin

derry wrote: »

So Civilisation needs saving more than the planet.Which one you preferr to save the most .The Irish one from inner cities.Maybe the Myan from central America..Or the tribal Civilisation in south American jungles.Maybe even the gooose steppers Civilisation from the past

We live in a global civilisation nowadays.

The rest of your post did not answer mine, but rather attacked my character, or was an unintelligible rant. I'll answer you only if you answer my actual points. Putting words in my mouth is not worth my time.

derry wrote:

I am a christian too even practice it

So you think I'm a "bleeding heart" to think that the third world needs are more important than the first world's greed? It's a label I am happy to take given who is on my side:

Luke 3:11 wrote:

John the Baptist answered, "The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same."

I could just say that you are going in for the religion of climate change denial. You have presented no better arguments than your own opinions, but are claiming that they are facts. So why should I argue with you?

derry

H&#250 wrote: »

I could just say that you are going in for the religion of climate change denial. You have presented no better arguments than your own opinions, but are claiming that they are facts. So why should I argue with you?

OK lets try and get to point without ruffling feathers.I dont enter the forum to argue .I enter to to debate .As a joe soap without a degree in science and having seen lots of quazi science eposodes in my life come and go at this stage the question for me is is global warming climate change whatever just another fad or a real issue.

The first time I ever heard of CO2 Global warming to be a threat to the world was in ~1975 on a channel four program called Alternitive three.I wont go into to the program except it predicted the imminent end of the world from CO2 and then the program broadcast in May or June said it was a April first hoax.Go figure.

Prior to that in that period all the universities were predicting the imminent arrival of the Ice age.Go figure.

Now since then is all full circle and now CO2 is going to cook our goose.
Having monitered the subject for many years and watched the players in the subject and seen big chunks of the CO2 green house warming theory torn apart and binned at this point of the debate I now am much less enamoured with the concept of Climate change facts.Thats not to say that climate change doesnt exist and neither is it to say it does exist .Best I can tell with the info out there and being in many forums world wide debating the issues the human race is more like fleas in a Jumbo jet trying to predict the next hot or cold spell as and when the plane flys to differnt climates.The science is in its infancy.Its a subject best I can tell that requires lots of debate both for and against so as to ensure the truth will win out.

Unfortunatly The CO2 debate moved out from science and went ferrel into quazi science and suedo religion and now its a real pain to wade through the stuff as its every where

Once we the world start the which religious camp are you in then debate is stifiled walls get built and science investigation gets distorted and we arrive at these crossroads where big operators stand to win big monetry advantages proving one side over the other

Science gets thrown out the window

As someone who prefers the truth to get out warts and all be it that CO2 is harmless or its lethal whatever I get non plussed when I see a media circus and new religious fanatizm coming into what is meant to be essentialy a Science debate

So much as I would strive to aim for energy effiency and make less polution I wont take on CO2 emmissions in itself as the evidence for me is way too weak to stand serious scrutiny

H&#250 wrote: »

So you think I'm a "bleeding heart" to think that the third world needs are more important than the first world's greed? It's a label I am happy to take given who is on my side:

Having lived and worked in the third world there is no desire in those parts of the world to be dependent on our handouts

Its the fishing hoook versus the fish problem.Its easy for us in this part of the world to imagine that if we can supply our solution to thier problems we can solve the problems there .
Often all we end up doing is making things a hole lot worse .
The consistant message from the third world is please pass down to them our old machinery so they can start to Industrialise and supply jobs and wealth.We consistantly say no can do as we need to scrape it as its too polluting and we go onto giving them CO2 lectures.
Often we cant afford to give them the new high teck non poluting solutions so they do without and we stuff thier faces with fish .
Now if it turns out in ten years time that CO2 was just another fad we have held up the advance of that third world country.
So for me its simple I wont fall into the CO climate change camp on the flimsy evidence I have seen to date.The evidence is way tooo thin to decide what cap limits on the futures CO2 emissions of third world .
The CO2 debate has looks to me to have done more to damage the naturaly evolving industrial futures of lots of third world countries.

Worse is the CO2 story has made it more easy for the big multinationals to dictate terms to these countries.These terms often mean that the best land is taken in a big buy out and used to grow cash crops often whose purpose is to make bio fuels .Locals are driven out as they have no funds to buy the title to the land often the land they been farming for hundreds of years which they considered to to be thier land .Then we find that the locals are now landless and working for slave rates like $1 a day or scrathing a living in the badlands where the water or soil is bad .Then the cash crop will be harvested to be sold into our fuel tanks.Then the third world country get CO2 points for growing stuff which gets sold to the world CO2 markets and the money for this goes to the local president and his family and the locals get squat.

So then we say Bio fuels farming is all bad.In other third world countries the local farmers own and farm the land and make Bio fuels and then we decide not to buy it as its bad for the planet whatever and cusae them to go bankrupt and lose thier machinery or farms

Thye story of the third world is littered with well intensioned seagull management solutions that never often ask the locals what do you guys really need.These projects often come in with unsuitable ideas and unsuitable equipment and a dictate to the locals how the solution will help them and some agenda to prove and when it fails they pack up and blame the lack of the locals abilty to learn whatever

One big case was in the 1950,s the british government decided to spend 2 Billion on clearing thousands of acres of land in Tanzania to make Tanzania a peanut growing country.For years the locals tried everthing to explain to the British that part of Tanzania the brit had chosen had a special weed that kills peanut plants and therefore there was no way that part of Tanzania could ever grow peanuts .The project has become famous as the third world peanut syndrome

The best way we can help the third world when we go there often is just to listen to the locals and then try to fit our solutions to thier needs.Often the solutions they propose can generate lots of CO2 .Thats just something we got to live with as we dont have enoeugh proof that CO2 is that bad.Later when these third world countries are making eneogh wealth then we can see to sell them solutions that make less CO2.Most helpers in the third world withdraw all the help if they see the project makes to much CO2 as its against thier local policy

The third world needs our help not our fish or our blinkered belief systems .

Its not easy to help the third world if we impose our baggage on them

H&#250 wrote: »

We live in a global civilisation nowadays.
The rest of your post did not answer mine, but rather attacked my character, or was an unintelligible rant. I'll answer you only if you answer my actual points. Putting words in my mouth is not worth my time.

No if you read it again I debated the points .Sometimes I shortened the stoff to show you that what you said had several meaning and that it wasnt for sure I was going to take the meaning you wanted

Its called a debate cut and thrust of debate and isnt a fight to the death or something.

All humans have tendency to bring thier belive systems into any debate.Even I err in this .However in debate which strive to get to follow science debates these are generaly not good points to use as the subject matter can have only three possibilties
CO2 accumilation is bad gas for some reason .CO2 is harmless gas .finally there exists the possibilty that CO2 accumulation is benifitial gas for the planet.
From these three possibilties religious zeal or mantra pontifications from pro CO2 climate change thery wont change the final result one bit.

So yes I will say my opinion again .There is no absolute proof yet that CO2 is a climate changing gas .In science the onus is on the climate change adhertant to prove conclusivly thier case.Instead they opted to use apolitical suedo science solution the IPCC to dictate terms in the debate .

Thats not proof that goose stepping over science.

Derry

derry

H&#250 wrote: »

I could just say that you are going in for the religion of climate change denial. You have presented no better arguments than your own opinions, but are claiming that they are facts. So why should I argue with you?

OK lets try and get to point without ruffling feathers.I dont enter the forum to argue .I enter to to debate .As a joe soap without a degree in science and having seen lots of quazi science eposodes in my life come and go at this stage the question for me is is global warming climate change whatever just another fad or a real issue.

The first time I ever heard of CO2 Global warming to be a threat to the world was in ~1975 on a channel four program called Alternitive three.I wont go into to the program except it predicted the imminent end of the world from CO2 and then the program broadcast in May or June said it was a April first hoax.Go figure.

Prior to that in that period all the universities were predicting the imminent arrival of the Ice age.Go figure.

Now since then is all full circle and now CO2 is going to cook our goose.
Having monitered the subject for many years and watched the players in the subject and seen big chunks of the CO2 green house warming theory torn apart and binned at this point of the debate I now am much less enamoured with the concept of Climate change facts.Thats not to say that climate change doesnt exist and neither is it to say it does exist .Best I can tell with the info out there and being in many forums world wide debating the issues the human race is more like fleas in a Jumbo jet trying to predict the next hot or cold spell as and when the plane flys to differnt climates.The science is in its infancy.Its a subject best I can tell that requires lots of debate both for and against so as to ensure the truth will win out.

Unfortunatly The CO2 debate moved out from science and went ferrel into quazi science and suedo religion and now its a real pain to wade through the stuff as its every where

Once we the world start the which religious camp are you in then debate is stifiled walls get built and science investigation gets distorted and we arrive at these crossroads where big operators stand to win big monetry advantages proving one side over the other

Science gets thrown out the window

As someone who prefers the truth to get out warts and all be it that CO2 is harmless or its lethal whatever I get non plussed when I see a media circus and new religious fanatizm coming into what is meant to be essentialy a Science debate

So much as I would strive to aim for energy effiency and make less polution I wont take on CO2 emmissions in itself as the evidence for me is way too weak to stand serious scrutiny

H&#250 wrote: »

So you think I'm a "bleeding heart" to think that the third world needs are more important than the first world's greed? It's a label I am happy to take given who is on my side:

Having lived and worked in the third world there is no desire in those parts of the world to be dependent on our handouts

Its the fishing hoook versus the fish problem.Its easy for us in this part of the world to imagine that if we can supply our solution to thier problems we can solve the problems there .
Often all we end up doing is making things a hole lot worse .
The consistant message from the third world is please pass down to them our old machinery so they can start to Industrialise and supply jobs and wealth.We consistantly say no can do as we need to scrape it as its too polluting and we go onto giving them CO2 lectures.
Often we cant afford to give them the new high teck non poluting solutions so they do without and we stuff thier faces with fish .
Now if it turns out in ten years time that CO2 was just another fad we have held up the advance of that third world country.
So for me its simple I wont fall into the CO climate change camp on the flimsy evidence I have seen to date.The evidence is way tooo thin to decide what cap limits on the futures CO2 emissions of third world .
The CO2 debate has looks to me to have done more to damage the naturaly evolving industrial futures of lots of third world countries.

Worse is the CO2 story has made it more easy for the big multinationals to dictate terms to these countries.These terms often mean that the best land is taken in a big buy out and used to grow cash crops often whose purpose is to make bio fuels .Locals are driven out as they have no funds to buy the title to the land often the land they been farming for hundreds of years which they considered to to be thier land .Then we find that the locals are now landless and working for slave rates like $1 a day or scrathing a living in the badlands where the water or soil is bad .Then the cash crop will be harvested to be sold into our fuel tanks.Then the third world country get CO2 points for growing stuff which gets sold to the world CO2 markets and the money for this goes to the local president and his family and the locals get squat.

So then we say Bio fuels farming is all bad.In other third world countries the local farmers own and farm the land and make Bio fuels and then we decide not to buy it as its bad for the planet whatever and cusae them to go bankrupt and lose thier machinery or farms

Thye story of the third world is littered with well intensioned seagull management solutions that never often ask the locals what do you guys really need.These projects often come in with unsuitable ideas and unsuitable equipment and a dictate to the locals how the solution will help them and some agenda to prove and when it fails they pack up and blame the lack of the locals abilty to learn whatever

One big case was in the 1950,s the british government decided to spend 2 Billion on clearing thousands of acres of land in Tanzania to make Tanzania a peanut growing country.For years the locals tried everthing to explain to the British that part of Tanzania the brit had chosen had a special weed that kills peanut plants and therefore there was no way that part of Tanzania could ever grow peanuts .The project has become famous as the third world peanut syndrome

The best way we can help the third world when we go there often is just to listen to the locals and then try to fit our solutions to thier needs.Often the solutions they propose can generate lots of CO2 .Thats just something we got to live with as we dont have enoeugh proof that CO2 is that bad.Later when these third world countries are making eneogh wealth then we can see to sell them solutions that make less CO2.Most helpers in the third world withdraw all the help if they see the project makes to much CO2 as its against thier local policy

The third world needs our help not our fish or our blinkered belief systems .

Its not easy to help the third world if we impose our baggage on them

H&#250 wrote: »

We live in a global civilisation nowadays.
The rest of your post did not answer mine, but rather attacked my character, or was an unintelligible rant. I'll answer you only if you answer my actual points. Putting words in my mouth is not worth my time.

No if you read it again I debated the points .Sometimes I shortened the stoff to show you that what you said had several meaning and that it wasnt for sure I was going to take the meaning you wanted

Its called a debate cut and thrust of debate and isnt a fight to the death or something.

All humans have tendency to bring thier belive systems into any debate.Even I err in this .However in debate which strive to get to follow science debates these are generaly not good points to use as the subject matter can have only three possibilties
CO2 accumilation is bad gas for some reason .CO2 is harmless gas .Finally there exists the possibilty that CO2 accumulation is benifitial gas for the planet.
From these three possibilties religious zeal or mantra pontifications from pro CO2 climate change thery wont change the final result one bit.

So yes I will say my opinion again .There is no absolute proof yet that CO2 is a climate changing gas .In science the onus is on the climate change adhertant to prove conclusivly thier case.Instead they opted to use a political suedo science solution the IPCC to dictate terms in the debate .

Thats not proof that goose stepping over science.

Derry

Húrin

derry wrote: »

OK lets try and get to point without ruffling feathers.I dont enter the forum to argue

I've already said that I will not debate with you unless you stop misrepresenting my arguments, and produce at least some sources for your claims.

Saying I have a fascist or quasi-religious agenda is misrepresention. Saying that I don't want the third world to industrialise is also misrepresention. In other words, you're lying about what I have said. In my post before I tried to deal with your perception that the climate movement is a shady, fascist organisation. But you cannot state it as if it were a fact.

Your most recent post was better than your previous one, but I will not give the dignity of a thorough response until you afford me the same dignity.