This lot might give a f*ck:
Smart move, one button and nice and cool.
Yes it dose, 100% for stating the bloody obvious.
Plus: hydro, wind and the best option nuclear.
So what, unless you are stupid enough to believe the tiny, and it is absolutely tiny, amount of heat, CO2 or water released will have anything but a negligible impact. But that would require a complete ignorance of the basic laws of nature.
But that's not true.
Nope wrong again.
A tiny percentage, that in turn use a tiny percentage of electricity generated, that in turn releases a tiny percentage of man made CO2 that in turn is less than a tiny percentage of overall CO2 released into the atmosphere.
None, 15c is below the normal operating temperature of most AC systems as it's "too cool" for optimum comfort. Still facts seem to have eluded you so far so no change there.
Not for a few hundred years at the current rate and if the government gets off it's backside and builds a few more nuclear plants that won't be a problem ever.
Ah because we have such a limited supply? Maybe you can discuss Ozone with Doug.
The amount of heat mankind produces is truly small compared to the amount from the sun. Water is not an issue. However, CO2 is undoubtedly a greenhouse gas. Mankind is producing a sizeable increase in the output of CO2. The only question is whether the earth is capable of soaking that up or not. It's an interesting question that we'll get the answer to in the next
30 - 50 years. If the earth can soak it up, then our efforts to reduce CO2 don't matter. If the earth can't soak up the extra CO2, we will get global warming, which will translate into major difficulties for us and future generations. In the circumstances of not knowing, the careful course is to work on the basis that it's a good thing to limit CO2 emissions.
Try again bozo, water is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
Why is water not an issue? Everybody knows that there's a huge difference between a cloudy night and a clear night in winter, and we are heating up tonnes of it and dumping it into the atmosphere. Is the difference between that and evaporation of the oceans far greater than the difference between artificial and natural CO2 emissions (if you count our own breathing as natural, seeing as none of the global warming hand wavers are suggesting overpopulation might be a problem)?
Because the water cycle is much larger, restricted to a smaller part of the atmosphere and the equilibrium concentration is disturbed less by evaporation. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is relatively low, which is why anthropogenic CO2 production is significant Roger Thorpe
In developed countries refrigeration and air conditioning use about 15% of the electricity generated. (I should have better figures, but I'm sure that someone else can get them for you if you can't be bothered yourself) Across the world the fastest growing energy sectors are transport and air conditioning. The problem is not trivial. Roger Thorpe
Thanks, I had forgotten what it was like to be called bozo. Immediate resort to going for the man not the ball, I see. You must be desperate for someone to insult.
The amount of water we produce is not significant. The amount of CO2 is. If you think otherwise, let's see your references.
Have you ever read uk.transport?
And do you have a source for that claim, bozo?
No, it's your claim, you first, I insist.
Oh, I thought bozo was some sort of insult, but you're obviously using it instead of please. I think you're probably wrong there. Try waiting until somebody really big comes up to a door and see whether "after you, bozo, I insist" works well for you.
No, after you, bozo, I insist.
You're the one claiming, on two occasions that water vapour is not a significant greenhouse gas. It's up to you to prove your claim. Since you apparently can't all that's left for you to do is to issue continuing attempts at proof by assertion.
Please continue to fall over your big clown feet, bozo the clown.
I don't think so! Go see what I said.
Sigh, it's so bleeding obvious that I don't know why I bother to humour you. However, in a hope that you will stop making an arse of yourself, bozo (ie please) have a look at the following: 'Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66%.[20] Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales (for example, near irrigated fields)' This is from
Now let's sum this up. I said something that's perfectly correct. You misunderstood, and on the basis of that misunderstanding called me a fool.
But it is an issue. It's the most potent greenhouse gas.
Perhaps you should try to communicate what you mean to communicate?
No, I didn't.
Oh there's no doubt that you're a fool, the only thing to decide is what sort of fool.
The CO2 being released from oil has been in the ground for millions of years. How on earth can it ever be 'soaked up' within a human timespan? The polluting motorists who dominate this transport newsgroup would love to believe that their chosen mode of personal transport doesn't affect the planet, to avoid blame, and consequently they will do nothing to limit their CO2 emissions. Maybe though, circumstances might dictate that they have to curb their emissions, such as oil price/scarcity and government legislation. Maybe they will decide to adopt a different status symbol, one of caring instead of wrecking, and give up their gas-guzzlers to instead drive around in modest little electric runabouts powered by the sun. How humble would that be? Yeah sure! When Hell freezes over.
-- World Carfree Network
Yawn. You're like a toddler having an argument in the playground. Bozo, double-bozo, etc.
For some reason there's been some debate about global warming on the u.c.h newsgroup, but you're not debating. You've put yourself in a totally untenable position, and the obvious thing to do is to admit it. Instead, your only response is to say fool, bozo, double-bozo with bells on (well, you haven't got to that one yet, but I'm sure it's imminent). You're just showing yourself up. Perhaps you were weaned too young or something like that.
Have a look here:
It may have been in the ground for millions of years but it is only plants. They grow fast enough if you let them. It is the hacking down of the jungles that is causing the problems not burning a bit of fuel. Hacking down the jungles slows down the earths ability to absorb CO2 and increases the amount of water vapour.
The greens love to pick on motorists and forget that houses and industry and farming account for far more. Its just an excuse to bump taxes up. Look at what happened when the torys put a carbon tax on fuel (VAT) for houses, etc.
You find someone that will sell me a small electric car at a sensible price and supply me with CO2 free electricity I can afford and I will.
The "untenable position" is to claim that "Water is not an issue" as a greenhouse gas.
I understood what he said to mean "anthropogenic water vapour is not an issue in global warming" That's the only way it makes sense in this context. What did you think he meant? Or is teis one of those pedantic / disingenuous arguments that make this group (I'm reading uk.transport) so tedious? Roger Thorpe
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.