Search for a Location
  Clear Recents
Metro
South West
Central West
North West
  Surf Cameras
  Safety Bay Camera
Metro
North
Mid North
Illawarra
South Coast
Metro
West Coast
East Coast
Brisbane
Far North
Central Coast
Sunshine Coast
Gold Coast
Hobart
West Coast
North Coast
East Coast
Recent
Western Australia
New South Wales
Victoria
South Australia
Queensland
Northern Territory
Tasmania
  My Favourites
  Reverse Arrows
General
Gps & Speed Sailing
Wave Sailing
Foiling
Gear Reviews
Lost & Found
Windsurfing WA
Windsurfing NSW
Windsurfing QLD
Windsurfing Victoria
Windsurfing SA
Windsurfing Tasmania
General
Gear Reviews
Foiling
Newbies / Tips & Tricks
Lost & Found
Western Australia
New South Wales
Queensland
Victoria
South Australia
Tasmania
General
Foiling
Board Talk & Reviews
Wing Foiling
All
Windsurfing
Kitesurfing
Surfing
Longboarding
Stand Up Paddle
Wing Foiling
Sailing
  Active Topics
  Subscribed Topics
  Rules & Guidelines
Login
Lost My Details!
Join! (Its Free)
  Search for a Location
  Clear Recents
Metro
South West
Central West
North West
Surf Cameras
Safety Bay Camera
Metro
North
Mid North
Illawarra
South Coast
Metro
West Coast
East Coast
Brisbane
Far North
Central Coast
Sunshine Coast
Gold Coast
Hobart
West Coast
North Coast
East Coast
Recent
Western Australia
New South Wales
Victoria
South Australia
Queensland
Northern Territory
Tasmania
  My Favourites
  Reverse Arrows
All
Windsurfing
Kitesurfing
Surfing
Longboarding
Stand Up Paddle
Wing Foiling
Sailing
Active Topics
Subscribed Topics
Forum Rules
Login
Lost My Details!
Join! (Its Free)

Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...

climate change whos paying?

Reply
Created by NowindSurfer > 9 months ago, 8 Dec 2009
j murray
SA, 947 posts
15 Dec 2009 4:42PM
Thumbs Up

Some years back there was a hole in the Ozone layer above the poles,

scientists decided to remedy this and they have been very successful,

However when a ball spins it creates vortex's, could these holes above

the poles been natural exhausts/chimneys for the planet and by sealing

them, they the scientists stopped the accumulated rubbish air from being

withdrawn from the earth. Thus causing global warming. Go for it!!!! [}:)]

maxm
NSW, 864 posts
15 Dec 2009 5:12PM
Thumbs Up

doggie said...

cisco said...



Did anybody else do anything productive for their boss today???


No..


Yesterday... not a lot. Today... yes.

Gestalt
QLD, 14449 posts
15 Dec 2009 4:25PM
Thumbs Up

maxm said...

doggie said...

cisco said...



Did anybody else do anything productive for their boss today???


No..


Yesterday... not a lot. Today... yes.


gots lots done yesterday. started work 7am finished around 1am.

petermac33
WA, 6415 posts
15 Dec 2009 2:26PM
Thumbs Up

watch the most obvious,blatant bias for yourself.

part 1 of 9

doggie
WA, 15849 posts
15 Dec 2009 2:43PM
Thumbs Up

j murray said...

Some years back there was a hole in the Ozone layer above the poles,

scientists decided to remedy this and they have been very successful,

However when a ball spins it creates vortex's, could these holes above

the poles been natural exhausts/chimneys for the planet and by sealing

them, they the scientists stopped the accumulated rubbish air from being

withdrawn from the earth. Thus causing global warming. Go for it!!!! [}:)]


Lets just wait 20 years to see what happens?

Gestalt
QLD, 14449 posts
15 Dec 2009 4:47PM
Thumbs Up

Gestalt
QLD, 14449 posts
15 Dec 2009 4:54PM
Thumbs Up

the supreme leader has asked me to show you all something very important.


maxm
NSW, 864 posts
15 Dec 2009 7:24PM
Thumbs Up

Gestalt said...

googleforidiots.com/


Great! I needed to practice my Russian. Thanks!

mineral1
WA, 4564 posts
15 Dec 2009 4:33PM
Thumbs Up

Just a small point that never actually comes up with a good direct answer.

What is the biggest contributor to global warming type gases on the planet?
We know the old live stock gets a smashing, but they don’t even come close in Methane.
So all you guru's what is it?
A small hint, there is zilch we can do about it

maxm
NSW, 864 posts
15 Dec 2009 7:37PM
Thumbs Up

petermac33 said...
maxm...this one world gov aint no joke, read this scary article that i posted before, it might open up a few eyes.

www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703574604574500580285679074



petermac... gee thanks. Yet another link to someone reporting Lord Monckton's ramblings.

It's good how a lord bangs on about "unelected commissars". Obviously we should reject the commissars and be pushing for a system of rule by divine right passed down by blood ties, just as God intended.

maxm
NSW, 864 posts
15 Dec 2009 7:39PM
Thumbs Up

mineral1 said...

A small hint, there is zilch we can do about it


I give up. Fish breath?

doggie
WA, 15849 posts
15 Dec 2009 4:45PM
Thumbs Up

maxm said...

mineral1 said...

A small hint, there is zilch we can do about it


I give up. Fish breath?


Fish poo......

mineral1
WA, 4564 posts
15 Dec 2009 4:45PM
Thumbs Up

maxm said...

mineral1 said...

A small hint, there is zilch we can do about it


I give up. Fish breath?


Nu

maxm
NSW, 864 posts
15 Dec 2009 7:50PM
Thumbs Up

GADZOOKS!

Even Google is in on the act. Chief Commissar Gore has obviously had his minions at work!



maxm
NSW, 864 posts
15 Dec 2009 7:51PM
Thumbs Up

doggie said...

maxm said...

mineral1 said...

A small hint, there is zilch we can do about it


I give up. Fish breath?


Fish poo......



Does it have anything to do with fish at all?

mineral1
WA, 4564 posts
15 Dec 2009 4:53PM
Thumbs Up

maxm said...

doggie said...

maxm said...

mineral1 said...

A small hint, there is zilch we can do about it


I give up. Fish breath?


Fish poo......


Your in the general pall park/area But no
Does it have anything to do with fish at all?


maxm
NSW, 864 posts
15 Dec 2009 8:02PM
Thumbs Up

mineral1 said...

maxm said...

doggie said...

maxm said...

mineral1 said...

A small hint, there is zilch we can do about it


I give up. Fish breath?


Fish poo......


Your in the general pall park/area But no
Does it have anything to do with fish at all?





Ah! Chips then.

doggie
WA, 15849 posts
15 Dec 2009 5:21PM
Thumbs Up

maxm said...

mineral1 said...

maxm said...

doggie said...

maxm said...

mineral1 said...

A small hint, there is zilch we can do about it


I give up. Fish breath?


Fish poo......


Your in the general pall park/area But no
Does it have anything to do with fish at all?





Ah! Chips then.


Dolphin and chips? It was Kernseys idea...................

Gestalt
QLD, 14449 posts
15 Dec 2009 9:44PM
Thumbs Up

mineral1 said...

Just a small point that never actually comes up with a good direct answer.

What is the biggest contributor to global warming type gases on the planet?
We know the old live stock gets a smashing, but they don’t even come close in Methane.
So all you guru's what is it?
A small hint, there is zilch we can do about it


water

mineral1
WA, 4564 posts
15 Dec 2009 8:07PM
Thumbs Up

Gestalt said...

mineral1 said...

Just a small point that never actually comes up with a good direct answer.

What is the biggest contributor to global warming type gases on the planet?
We know the old live stock gets a smashing, but they don’t even come close in Methane.
So all you guru's what is it?
A small hint, there is zilch we can do about it


water


Close enough, its the worlds Oceans and the vegetation rotting in them that produces the most Methane . This coupled with the volcanic systems throwing the odd hissy fit
But we have managed to live so far with it, adding too it, isn't that good either

Regardless of what happens, nothing surer we are going to get stung one way or tother via Global business in our skyrockets.
How we reduce the "stung impact" is the burning question, and to what level can our efforts outside the bullcrap going on, impact the remedy's

cisco
QLD, 12348 posts
15 Dec 2009 10:32PM
Thumbs Up

doggie said...
Lets just wait 20 years to see what happens?


Absolutely the best suggestion put forward so far.

Gestalt
QLD, 14449 posts
15 Dec 2009 10:38PM
Thumbs Up

i'm not sure if i am just being semantic here but the biggest contributor is actually water, or water vapor.

increasing temperatures increases water vapor and there enters the scary concept of positive feedback.

water vapor, contributes 36–72%
carbon dioxide, contributes 9–26%
methane, contributes 4–9%
ozone, contributes 3–7%

positive feedback from what i understand is where the scientific debate is currently at and one point that the computer models are struggling with.

from what i understand there is no issue with the amount of co2 or methane or other gases that get released into the atmosphere as earth is a balanced system and the forests soak up the co2, then enters mankind and overloads the system beyond the natural cycle.

Gestalt
QLD, 14449 posts
15 Dec 2009 10:57PM
Thumbs Up

timeframes

from csiro "If significant mitigation efforts start in 2010, leading to emissions peaking in 2020 and CO2 equivalent concentrations stabilising around 600 ppm after 2060, scientists project a warming of 1.1 to 2.2 ºC by 2100. The chance of avoiding a warming of 2 ºC would be around 90 per cent.

However, if global emissions continue to climb so that CO2 equivalent concentrations exceed 970 ppm by 2100, then temperatures are projected to increase by 2.2 to 4.7 ºC by 2100, and there would be little chance of avoiding a 2 ºC warming.

The warming projected for Australia in 2070 is 1.0 to 2.5 ºC for a low emission scenario (similar to a 500 ppm CO2 equivalent path) and 2.2 to 5.0 ºC for a high emission scenario (similar to the world’s current path).

Warming is projected to be lower near the coast and in Tasmania and higher in central and north-western Australia. These changes will be felt through an increase in the number of hot days. In Canberra, for example, the present annual average of five days over 35 ºC may rise to seven to 10 days by 2030 and eight to 26 days by 2070.
"


taken from wiki.....

Examples of the atmospheric lifetime and GWP for several greenhouse gases include:[51]

Carbon dioxide has a variable atmospheric lifetime, and cannot be specified precisely.[52] Recent work indicates that recovery from a large input of atmospheric CO2 from burning fossil fuels will result in an effective lifetime of tens of thousands of years.[53][54] Carbon dioxide is defined to have a GWP of 1 over all time periods.
Methane has an atmospheric lifetime of 12 ± 3 years and a GWP of 72 over 20 years, 25 over 100 years and 7.6 over 500 years. The decrease in GWP at longer times is because methane is degraded to water and CO2 through chemical reactions in the atmosphere.
Nitrous oxide has an atmospheric lifetime of 114 years and a GWP of 289 over 20 years, 298 over 100 years and 153 over 500 years.
CFC-12 has an atmospheric lifetime of 100 years and a GWP of 11000 over 20 years, 10900 over 100 years and 5200 over 500 years.
HCFC-22 has an atmospheric lifetime of 12 years and a GWP of 5160 over 20 years, 1810 over 100 years and 549 over 500 years.
Tetrafluoromethane has an atmospheric lifetime of 50,000 years and a GWP of 5210 over 20 years, 7390 over 100 years and 11200 over 500 years.
Hexafluoroethane has an atmospheric lifetime of 10,000 years and a GWP of 8630 over 20 years, 12200 over 100 years and 18200 over 500 years.
Sulphur hexafluoride has an atmospheric lifetime of 3,200 years and a GWP of 16300 over 20 years, 22800 over 100 years and 32600 over 500 years.
Nitrogen trifluoride has an atmospheric lifetime of 740 years and a GWP of 12300 over 20 years, 17200 over 100 years and 20700 over 500 years.

Gestalt
QLD, 14449 posts
15 Dec 2009 11:19PM
Thumbs Up

australia role in polution per capita.

Gestalt
QLD, 14449 posts
15 Dec 2009 11:35PM
Thumbs Up

hi mineral, i re-read your post and see that i was being semantic or just miss understanding.

thought you said what is the biggest contributor to global warming, not biggest contributor of ghg to global warming.

Gestalt said...

i'm not sure if i am just being semantic here but the biggest contributor is actually water, or water vapor.

increasing temperatures increases water vapor and there enters the scary concept of positive feedback.

water vapor, contributes 36–72%
carbon dioxide, contributes 9–26%
methane, contributes 4–9%
ozone, contributes 3–7%

positive feedback from what i understand is where the scientific debate is currently at and one point that the computer models are struggling with.

from what i understand there is no issue with the amount of co2 or methane or other gases that get released into the atmosphere as earth is a balanced system and the forests soak up the co2, then enters mankind and overloads the system beyond the natural cycle.


mineral1
WA, 4564 posts
15 Dec 2009 10:37PM
Thumbs Up

Gestalt said...

hi mineral, i re-read your post and see that i was being semantic or just miss understanding.

thought you said what is the biggest contributor to global warming, not biggest contributor of ghg to global warming.

Gestalt said...

i'm not sure if i am just being semantic here but the biggest contributor is actually water, or water vapor.

increasing temperatures increases water vapor and there enters the scary concept of positive feedback.

water vapor, contributes 36–72%
carbon dioxide, contributes 9–26%
methane, contributes 4–9%
ozone, contributes 3–7%

positive feedback from what i understand is where the scientific debate is currently at and one point that the computer models are struggling with.

from what i understand there is no issue with the amount of co2 or methane or other gases that get released into the atmosphere as earth is a balanced system and the forests soak up the co2, then enters mankind and overloads the system beyond the natural cycle.





Go to bed, sploody late in Queensaland, an you gunna snore lots and make more methane
There's not such thing as global climate change
Bawhawhawhaw

cisco
QLD, 12348 posts
16 Dec 2009 3:29AM
Thumbs Up

Gestalt said...

australia role in polution per capita.




Oh my goodness. Australians are the worst carbon polluters in the world but how can this be so???

We don't have any manufacturing here. We exported all that to China.

We have only got some clapped out old coal fired powerstations that have a hard time keeping our houses powered so it can't be that. Nuclear would obviously be a better choice for us but Wudd, Wong and Gawwett have everybody freaked on that one.

Is it our cows farting??

No!! It is the coal you idiot!!

But how can it be the coal?? We only have a few power stations in which we use that crappy coal full of rock that nobody else will buy and blows the pulverisers up regularly despite the fact we pay premium price to the foreign owned mining companies for our own coal. It can't be the coal.

Of course it is the coal you idiot!! It was your coal and then you gave it to the foreign mining companies who then sold it to the Chinese who then burnt it and therefore "carbon pollution" which is all your fault because it was your coal in the first place.

Oh.

Sometimes I just wonder what it takes to convince you colonials that it is all your fault and you should be feeling as guilty as sin for causing all this carbon pollution.

The only ones worse than you are those "nouvo riche" Arabs in Dubai and Qatar but we can't mention them or we will be called anti muslimist.

j murray
SA, 947 posts
16 Dec 2009 8:55AM
Thumbs Up


^^^^^^ minimullism. new word ...you saw it here first

Gestalt
QLD, 14449 posts
16 Dec 2009 8:52AM
Thumbs Up

another big fat fail cisco,

export coal you say. what a crock try this from 2009

www.abc.net.au/news/2009-09-11/australians-the-worlds-worst-polluters/1425986

and here is the original 2009 report

www.maplecroft.com/about/news/australia_overtakes_usa_as_top_polluter_09.html

cisco said...

Gestalt said...

australia role in polution per capita.




Oh my goodness. Australians are the worst carbon polluters in the world but how can this be so???

We don't have any manufacturing here. We exported all that to China.

We have only got some clapped out old coal fired powerstations that have a hard time keeping our houses powered so it can't be that. Nuclear would obviously be a better choice for us but Wudd, Wong and Gawwett have everybody freaked on that one.

Is it our cows farting??

No!! It is the coal you idiot!!

But how can it be the coal?? We only have a few power stations in which we use that crappy coal full of rock that nobody else will buy and blows the pulverisers up regularly despite the fact we pay premium price to the foreign owned mining companies for our own coal. It can't be the coal.

Of course it is the coal you idiot!! It was your coal and then you gave it to the foreign mining companies who then sold it to the Chinese who then burnt it and therefore "carbon pollution" which is all your fault because it was your coal in the first place.

Oh.

Sometimes I just wonder what it takes to convince you colonials that it is all your fault and you should be feeling as guilty as sin for causing all this carbon pollution.

The only ones worse than you are those "nouvo riche" Arabs in Dubai and Qatar but we can't mention them or we will be called anti muslimist.


maxm
NSW, 864 posts
16 Dec 2009 10:24AM
Thumbs Up

cisco said...

The only ones worse than you are those "nouvo riche" Arabs in Dubai and Qatar but we can't mention them or we will be called anti muslimist.


Yes, they're there in the chart... Saudi at around 17, Kuwait at around 30 and Qatar and the AUE at around a whopping 35. Look closely.

Gestalt said...

another big fat fail cisco,

export coal you say. what a crock try this from 2009

www.abc.net.au/news/2009-09-11/australians-the-worlds-worst-polluters/1425986



From which we get Professor Barry Brook, the chair of climate change at the University of Adelaide saying:

"... it's a bit of a political game like that. Australia has about five times the per capita emissions of China for instance but China produces over 20 times the carbon emissions of Australia because China has such a huge population," he said.

"So you can play around with these numbers all you want but ultimately what matters is the total global carbon budget and unless humanity as a whole can find solutions to that problem, then all of that petty bickering amongst nations about who's more or less responsible isn't really going to be very helpful."


We'd get through this issue far quicker if the nations would stop politicking. Which is why the notion that the Copenhagen conference is some kind of plot from the world's governments is laughable. Those guys have trouble agreeing where in the room they should sit, never mind colluding on some secret plan to take over the world.

Which is precisely why I said a world government is bloody good idea... if there were ONE government, they'd get on with it instead of bickering, arguing and posturing.



Subscribe
Reply

Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...


"climate change whos paying?" started by NowindSurfer