Visit our Popular Forums

Exile · 15-05-2016, 08:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Hmmm. I would consider that the selfish refusal to moderate behaviours that gobble up a disproportionate amount of the world's resources, and have the potential to irrepairably damage the environment is, in effect, enslaving the future. You're the slaver; we're trying to liberate the future.

(yes yes, you live on a boat, small carbon footprint, blah blah blah.... but can you get 299,999,000 of your friends to do likewise?)

I think I hear L-E's mother calling for him to stop all the furious typing down in his basement room and come upstairs for lunch. And if he keeps insisting they install solar panels on the roof, he'll have to get a job and pay for them himself.

**newhaul** · 15-05-2016, 08:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

(yes yes, you live on a boat, small carbon footprint, blah blah blah.... but can you get 299,999,000 of your friends to do likewise?)

Actually now that you mention it I have converted about a dozen " dirt dwellers ". To the low impact liveaboards life. I know its not your 299,999,000 but it is a start.

mr_f · 15-05-2016, 09:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

There is one item missing from your equation and that is timeframe . 280+(12x10 years)= 400 .
Although I really doubt its that simple more likely there has been one ppm added to the atmosphere per year for the last 120 years. Which would mean to my engineering mind we will see co2 at. 484 ppm In 2100.

Not missing from my equation. That is delfin's equation. He keeps claiming our input is 12ppm of the 400ppm. In his mind, we have only added 12ppm over the last 150 years.

You are correct that you could look at it by time (although it happened over 150 years, not 10, so our annual increase is not nearly 12ppm per year). You have come to an important conclusion. A very small change per year could have a large effect on the total over a number of years.

Also worth noting it has not been linear. We had little impact 150 years ago, we have more now, and our emissions are increasing, so your 2100 estimate is low unless we change our behavior.

Lake-Effect · 15-05-2016, 09:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

There is one item missing from your equation and that is timeframe . 280+(12x10 years)= 400 .
Although I really doubt its that simple more likely there has been one ppm added to the atmosphere per year for the last 120 years. Which would mean to my engineering mind we will see co2 at. 484 ppm In 2100.

Amount of CO2 emitted from fossil fuel hasn't been a steady rise over the last 120 or whatever years. Try a linear projection from the last 20 or 30 years... but even that will be optimistic.

(source)
♫ ♬ ♪
Never gonna give you up
Never gonna put you down

Exile · 15-05-2016, 09:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delfin

I'm buying a cow. I understand cow farts are helpful.

That's what Sailorboy says too, but I always thought it was belching??

Oh well, two for the price of one.

Lake-Effect · 15-05-2016, 09:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exile

I think I hear L-E's mother calling for him to stop all the furious typing down in his basement room and come upstairs for lunch. And if he keeps insisting they install solar panels on the roof, he'll have to get a job and pay for them himself.

Once again I am laid low by your clear-headed, constructive and scientific approach. Oooh the pain.

Exile · 15-05-2016, 09:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

Actually now that you mention it I have converted about a dozen " dirt dwellers ". To the low impact liveaboards life. I know its not your 299,999,000 but it is a start.

Your modest start is apparently well ahead of the GW zealots we've heard from thus far, especially the one who keeps castigating everyone for not doing more to reduce their emissions.

Exile · 15-05-2016, 09:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Once again I am laid low by your clear-headed, constructive and scientific approach. Oooh the pain.

Only trying to match the sophistication of the posts I'm replying to so as not to make you look bad. There are, after all, more important things going on in the world. Not your world, of course, but in the real world.

**newhaul** · 15-05-2016, 09:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exile

Your modest start is apparently well ahead of the GW zealots we've heard from thus far, especially the one who keeps castigating everyone for not doing more to reduce their emissions.

I'm not going to reduce my burrito intake just the make the MMGW ppl happy.

Exile · 15-05-2016, 09:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

I'm not going to reduce my burrito intake just the make the MMGW ppl happy.

Can't blame you given your low-impact lifestyle aboard, but if they get their way you might still need a permit for those particular emissions. Maybe hold the salsa??

**newhaul** · 15-05-2016, 09:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exile

Can't blame you given your low-impact lifestyle aboard, but if they get their way you might still need a permit for those particular emissions. Maybe hold the salsa??

It will not be a permit it will be an emissions tax on a per fart basis.

Kenomac · 15-05-2016, 09:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exile

Only trying to match the sophistication of the posts I'm replying to so as not to make you look bad. There are, after all, more important things going on in the world. Not your world, of course, but in the real world.

Actually, transgender bathrooms seem to be the hot topic for Obama and the Democrats. Watching everything from overseas.... it's a comedy show. LOL

Lake-Effect · 15-05-2016, 09:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Actually, transgender bathrooms seem to be the hot topic for Obama and the Democrats. Watching everything from overseas.... it's a comedy show. iSIS issues in the middle east and Africa, and Obama proclaims cogender bathrooms to be standard issue in America. LOL

Are we gonna really do US politics here? Cos, you know, um...