I think this is one area where the media in general let everybody down. In their attempts to make the subject easy to understand they tend to give the impression that there is a straight causal relationship between CO2 and temp. The reality is as you point out, a much more complex closed loop system, with phase shifts, and feedback effects and delays in both directions. So CO2 change can be a result of temperature change, at the same time as being a re-enforcing influence on it.
One should also point out that the *planet* will be quite fine whatever we do. We/they are merely trying to control and preserve the green scum on its surface called the biosphere.
Most of these calculations assume you always have the doors and windows shut. I like fresh air.
D/g windows are low maintenance and provide sound insulation as well.
For some reason TNP has chosen not to answer, so I guess it wont go on..
NT
They have.
Water vapour cannot increase without it rains.
Methane breaks down pretty quickly in te current ecosphere chemical regime.
No, its significant because it hangs around for thousands of years, is capable of dramatic increases and it it IS a greenhouse gas of considerable note.
I don't know where you got all that toss from. It is in direct contradiction to every single study done.
Bollocks.
But twice as good an insulant, and not subject to killing people in a dire.
Insulation properties at that thickness are compromised.
no, we'd be in 99.78% of the mess instead.
Big Deal.
Since there is vastly more CO2 than methane the lesser effect per molecule is not significant. Water vapour is only a greenhouse gas if it is not in clouds and that depends on the altitude of the clouds.
Secondly, no one can find any evidence that
Because the oceans haven't reached thermal equilibrium with the atmosphere yet, when even the deep sea has warmed the ocean will take less of the heat and the atmosphere will warm appreciably. And the sea level rise due to thermal expansion will hit us. I'm glad I don't live on Canvey Island.
yet they are getting closer and closer to modelling reality, which means they have accounted for the major operators. If the remaining factors were so significant as to render the modelling as unreliable as you seem to imply it would show up. Geeze this is standard science, you build a model of reality, test it and refine it until you get it to accurately reflect reality. The climate computer models are no different from other forms of scientific modelling. If you reject that aspect of the climate models you have to reject most of the scientific method.
That of course completely ignores the fact that the oceans' ability to absorb CO2 is not simply a matter of solubility, after all where did the White Cliffs come from? The sea is alive, biological capacity will alter depending on temperature and fertility. The ability of the sea to bloom, capture CO2 in things like diatom skeletons and then lay those skeletons down put your simplistic caricature to shame. And you have the temerity to accuse the climate models of not including relevant factors.
Peter
The thing about CO2 is not necessarily it's primary effect on planetary warming. It's that small increases in CO2 cause a (small) increase in temperatures, which in turn releases more water vapour into the atmosphere. As you rightly say, it's the water vapour that is the major warming gas, but the amount of it in the air depends on the CO2 "driving" that lets it evapourate in the first place. CO2 starts the avalanche.
The greenhouse effect is very real, both in theory and in fact. Even without human intervention the CO2 that occurs naturally in the air increases the temperature of the planet by 10's of degrees. Without it, the place would be much colder.
Its in the building regs..or my copy anyway.
What do you want me to do?
Go and learn about the variation in the activity of the Sun and it's effect on climate. When your done, come back and tell us how we can turn the sun down a notch or two.
MBQ
Then go and look at the measured graphs of sun output and compare with the current rises.
And shut up.
Couldn't we just move Earth a bit further away, or change its tilt, or something?
Admittedly that might disrupt people's Sky viewing...
Owain
|!Dave Fawthrop wrote: |!> On Thu, 17 May 2007 17:19:01 +0100, Andy Hall wrote: |!> |!> |!> |!> |!> I have spent more than 0.12% of my |!> |!> income over many years to limit my use of energy. |!> |! |!> |!Lovely. How much difference has that made to "saving" the planet? |!> |!> If *everyone* had done that we would not be in the mess we are now in. |!no, we'd be in 99.78% of the mess instead.
99% cure would do me.
Shame it's neither realistic nor necessary.
Basic wiki article on u values and a nice big list of em for all the typical building materials. (don't think current building regs have much in along those lines do they?)
Of course, but still apparently a *lot* better than nothing, and easy to put up.
99% cure is 1% of the mess.
99.78% of the mess is .12% of the cure.
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.