Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It seems that the "danger" of Carbon Credits as a new currency is no longer a danger but a growing reality: a whole new scam for those who have positioned themselves to get rich off the developed nations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Is there any way to stop this and reverse the damage already done?...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
And there's still zilch understanding about computer models.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Buzz Lightyear:
If correct - and this is still being checked - AIRS does show that CO2 mixing is not complete.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It seems that the "danger" of Carbon Credits as a new currency is no longer a danger but a growing reality

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

1. Say stupid shit about a divisive topic.
2. Ignore any real attempt at conversation.
3. Deliberately misinterpret what anyone else says, vilifying everyone with shotgun comments.
4. Say stupid shit about specific people, and emulate steps 2 and 3.
5. Go to 1.

And it keeps going round and round because there's always some dumbass who is momentarily blinded to the utter predictability of the cycle.

http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=001366;p=11#000543

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
"Existing", as in defined; and "existing", as in implemented and becoming a growing concern, are two different things.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:

Myrrh,

Your sources are shite.
Your arguments are shite.
Your conclusions are shite.

You have created arguments that require more suspension of disbelief than most sci-fi movies...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
Stop pretending you're a scientist.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
I'm just glad of the (carbon-)free entertainment.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:
I saw this from Rook in the 2006 thread where Myrrh called Marvin to Hell:

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:
I saw this from Rook in the 2006 thread where Myrrh called Marvin to Hell:

---

Hostly Hat ON
Hellish behavior is not allowed in Purgatory. Quoting from an old Hell thread is not an acceptable way of weaseling out of that proscription. Do not do this kind of thing again.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
Hostly Hat OFF

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:

And by questioning the claim that CO2 is 'well mixed' in the atmosphere, because of such things as its weight relative to oxygen and nitrogen which make up practically 100% of the atmosphere, and, as obvious to every mountain climber and I thought well known generally, even oxygen isn't 'well mixed' the higher one goes..

---

After such an obvious "clunker", why should anyone take these posts seriously?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:

And by questioning the claim that CO2 is 'well mixed' in the atmosphere, because of such things as its weight relative to oxygen and nitrogen which make up practically 100% of the atmosphere, and, as obvious to every mountain climber and I thought well known generally, even oxygen isn't 'well mixed' the higher one goes..

---

After such an obvious "clunker", why should anyone take these posts seriously?

---

Why is this a "clunker"? I hope you're not thinking of taking up mountaineering, you'd be in for a shock, if not death. The world is not as modelled by these game boys, clouds exist, the atmosphere is not well mixed.


Myrrh

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:

And by questioning the claim that CO2 is 'well mixed' in the atmosphere, because of such things as its weight relative to oxygen and nitrogen which make up practically 100% of the atmosphere, and, as obvious to every mountain climber and I thought well known generally, even oxygen isn't 'well mixed' the higher one goes..

---

After such an obvious "clunker", why should anyone take these posts seriously?

---

Why is this a "clunker"? I hope you're not thinking of taking up mountaineering, you'd be in for a shock, if not death.

Myrrh

---

quote:

---

I start running out of Oxygen if I climb Mount Everest not because the ratio of O2 is any less, but because the air itself is thinner: there's less of all the gases. O2 is still nearly 20% of the air. (By the way, jets fly a lot higher, and their engines need Oxygen to burn their fuel...)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
Shrug. You can lead a horse to water..

---

quote:

---

The Atmosphere is not Standard Dry Air.

---

quote:

---

As one ascends through the atmosphere, barometric pressure decreases (though the air still contains 21% oxygen) and thus every breath contains fewer and fewer molecules of oxygen.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Welcome to the Ship, Sleepwalker.

No,nothing fancy or particularly green - though obviously that would be better. If I wasn't here on this thread being entertained, I might be elsewhere online or getting on with other activities needing my computer.

All the energy used by my PC ends up as heat, which as it's winter is not wasted but heats the room slightly. Since the electricity does come largely from fossil fuel (except the nuclear power component) which is bad and adds CO2, but so does my gas central heating. If the PC was turned off and I did nothing else, I'd need (guessing) 120W more heating, so I'm saying my use of it makes no difference in winter and is therefore carbon-free.

In the summer any excess heat is a waste and my rationalisation is not valid.
.

---

Hi Clint,

I was hoping to cook up some numbers on carbon costs, but in the absence of time, a bit of handwaving: your boiler (if a modern condensing type) is about 90% efficient in converting fossil fuel to heat. Unfortunately, your electricity is made up of approximately 40% coal (about 35% generation efficiency) and 40% natural gas (about 50% efficient). The remaining 20% is nuclear, with a bit of renewables - negligible carbon cost compared with fossil fuels. You then have around 7% transmission losses to get the juice to your computer. All in all, it takes about 2 units of fossil fuel to give you one unit of heat from your PC, compared to 1.1 from your boiler. This is ignoring the fact that the carbon footprint from coal is substantially more than that from natural gas, which makes it worse.

Of course, my office is heated in the same way, (I currently have a power meter on my PC: it's eating 130W as I type this, not counting the screen). It works, it's just inefficient. I'm assuming you've turned your thermostat down to compensate, of course, and aren't just being a bit warmer .

Enviro-fact of the day: putting your PC on "low power" standby mode reduces power consumption by something like 7% (being generous - not counting switching the screen off). If you want to save electricity, you have to turn it off. Sorry!

Question (to anyone, not just Clint!): The UK's make-up of power stations doesn't change if I switch to a "100% renewables" tariff - my supply is still generated 40% from coal! Should changing my billing provider give me a license to leave bar fires on all day without worrying about the carbon cost, or should it make no difference? In short, is changing to a "green" tariff anything more than accounting?

- Chris.

--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
Garbage in will always result in garbage out.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

“At oxygen concentrations [in air] of 4 to 6%, there is loss of consciousness in 40 seconds and death within a few minutes” (DiMaio & DiMaio 2001:231). As this procedure provides an atmosphere completely devoid of oxygen, the sequence of effects should be expected to occur even more quickly. At an altitude greater than 43,000 ft (13,000 m), where the ambient oxygen concentration is equivalent to 3.6% at sea level, an average individual is able to perform flying duties efficiently for only 9 to 12 seconds without oxygen supplementation (Fisher n.d.). The US Air Force trains air crews to recognize their individual subjective signs of approaching hypoxia. Nitrogen Asphyxiation

---

quote:

---

Mexico City’s air has gone from among the world’s cleanest to among the dirtiest in the span of a generation. Novelist Carlos Fuentes first novel took place here in 1959 and was entitled "Where the air is clear" - a title he has said is ironic considering the city’s now –soupy environment.
The average visibility of some 100 km in 1940s is down to about 1.5 km. Snow-capped volcanoes (Popocatepetl, Ixtacihuatl, and Paricutin) that were once parts of the landscape are now visible only rarely (fig.1.2). And levels of almost any pollutant like nitrogen dioxide (NO2) now regularly break international standards by two to three times. Levels of ozone (O3), a pollutant that protects us from solar radiation in the upper atmosphere but is dangerous to breathe, are twice as high here as the maximum allowed limit for one hour a year and this occurs several hours per day every day ..

..
The most important air pollutant of Mexico City are ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), precursors like nitrogen oxides (NOX), hydrocarbons (HC), and carbon monoxide (CO), that originate from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. At these altitudes, the partial pressure of oxygen (pO2) is far lower than at sea level, thus combustion is far from ideal. Most of the energy consumed in this city is related to urban transportation. A very important source of air pollution is gas exhaust from private vehicles.
The image on the right shows drastically how the prevailing atmospheric conditions affect Mexico City. A change in the temperature stratification within higher altitudes of the atmosphere hinders exhaust gases to escape the valley. Such situations and the massive generation of toxic gases can alter the trapped air into a harmful cocktail...

In the atmosphere, nitric oxide is oxidized to nitrogen dioxide, which is a major constituent of smog:


N2 + O2 → 2NO
(w/n the combustion engine)
Smog appears brown partly because it absorbs sunlight at wavelengths less than 400 nm.


Mexico Air

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:

Anyway, I'm getting extremely bored with this AGW fantasy science and if I post again it will be re the OP.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Continuing on the subject of climate models, here's an information sheet about the Hadley models (I'm not sure why it hasn't been updated in almost 10 years though). It should be simple enough for most people to understand. As you can see, the models (even a decade ago) include such factors as clouds, heat transfer in the atmosphere columns and between columns, the oceans and biosphere ... in fact, basically everything you need to model the climate from first principles. Unlike earlier models that were severely limited due to computational resource, the latest models don't need artificially introduced fluxes to maintain stability. They aren't perfect, of course, but predict the major features of the climate with a decent degree of accuracy. Despite what some cranks may want to say to the contrary.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So I'd been looking into climate change models out of general curiosity, and had found this link on the BBC Website

---

• Simple Models of Climate
• General Circulation Models of Climate
• Basic Radiation Calculations

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Many thanks, Hiro.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:
Hi Clint,

I was hoping to cook up some numbers on carbon costs, but in the absence of time, a bit of handwaving: your boiler (if a modern condensing type) is about 90% efficient in converting fossil fuel to heat. Unfortunately, your electricity is made up of approximately 40% coal (about 35% generation efficiency) and 40% natural gas (about 50% efficient). The remaining 20% is nuclear, with a bit of renewables - negligible carbon cost compared with fossil fuels. You then have around 7% transmission losses to get the juice to your computer. All in all, it takes about 2 units of fossil fuel to give you one unit of heat from your PC, compared to 1.1 from your boiler. This is ignoring the fact that the carbon footprint from coal is substantially more than that from natural gas, which makes it worse.

---

quote:

---

I'm assuming you've turned your thermostat down to compensate, of course, and aren't just being a bit warmer.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
Shrug. You can lead a horse to water..

---

You can say that again.

quote:

---

The Atmosphere is not Standard Dry Air.

---

We agree. It is proper to draw that distinction. But the percentage of oxygen in the real atmosphere remains pretty constant in the troposphere, and that is the only point that matters when considering altitude hypoxia. It is the reduction in pressure (at the top of Everest it is down to about 30% of sea level) which is the root cause of altitude hypoxia, not any marginal variation in the percentage of oxygen at different atmospheric heights.

Here is an article on high altitude sickness. And here is a nice one-sentence quote from it.

quote:

---

As one ascends through the atmosphere, barometric pressure decreases (though the air still contains 21% oxygen) and thus every breath contains fewer and fewer molecules of oxygen.

---

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian Agnostic:
Myrrh I'm not to sure of. So,for the sake of clarity, Myrrh would you answer the following question:

What are your thoughts and feelings about Objectivism and its' author Ayn Rand?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Wait. A penny may be about to drop ....

---

If only we could harvest your optimism as a fuel source.

sanityman - I'd be interested to hear what you think of Greg Craven's book, and if it's as engaging as his video.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:
Question (to anyone, not just Clint!): The UK's make-up of power stations doesn't change if I switch to a "100% renewables" tariff - my supply is still generated 40% from coal! Should changing my billing provider give me a license to leave bar fires on all day without worrying about the carbon cost, or should it make no difference? In short, is changing to a "green" tariff anything more than accounting?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clint Boggis:

quote:

---

I'm assuming you've turned your thermostat down to compensate, of course, and aren't just being a bit warmer.

---

In return for your correction, let me offer you one. It's often suggested that if you make some change, such as better insulation, you can turn your thermostat down. While this would be a positive step, it just means choosing to live in a cooler house. I assume you don't fiddle with your thermostat depending on the weather - you just let it keep your house at the temperature you choose.

---

• Coal: 42.0%
• Natural Gas: 42.0%
• Nuclear: 8.0%
• Renewables: 6.0%
• Other: 2.0%

quote:

---

I turn my PC off at the wall. Since measuring the power consumption of various equipment, I'm suspicious of 'standby'. My PVR uses almost the same power in 'standby' but I couldn't turn it off as it wouldn't get software updates or update the EPG. Stupid system!
.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
As I understand it, some green tariffs are entirely pointless. UK energy suppliers are legally obliged to source a proportion of their energy from renewables, and some of the 'green' tariffs simply allocate this energy to your bill. It was going to be done regardless, and hence makes no difference whatsoever.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:
That's pretty sad if it's the case.

---

quote:

---

In fact, we are usually subsidising the power companies to do what they are required by law to do already. Worse, despite us paying through our green noses, they still can't meet their targets. Then they rub our noses in it by selling what "green electricity" they do produce over and over again.

This is all within the law, of course. But that is because the government's green laws are a mess. In many cases, buying green electricity is not so much greenwash as a full-scale green con.

Certainly, that's the view of Virginia Graham, who six years ago drew up the first set of guidelines on green tariffs, for the industry regulator Ofgem. She is now wiser and more cynical. "It suits the companies for people to think they are getting green electricity if they sign up to green tariffs," she says. "But in most cases they are not, and people are being misled."

---