<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: An Inconvenient Truth</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.blog.thesietch.org/2006/06/26/an-inconvenient-truth/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.blog.thesietch.org/2006/06/26/an-inconvenient-truth/</link>
	<description>The voice of The Sietch community</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 06:22:41 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: nitroburn</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.thesietch.org/2006/06/26/an-inconvenient-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-1505</link>
		<dc:creator>nitroburn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:50:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blog.thesietch.org/2006/06/26/an-inconvenient-truth/#comment-1505</guid>
		<description>While the movie has many good points, there are many misunderstandings around the science. Especially in relation to CO2 &amp; the Greenhouse Effect 

&quot;the temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic (that means there is a diminishing response as you keep adding more). If we consider the warming effect of the pre-Industrial Revolution atmospheric carbon dioxide (about 280 parts per million by volume or ppmv) as 1, then the first half of that heating was delivered by about 20ppmv (0.002% of atmosphere) while the second half required an additional 260ppmv (0.026%).

To double the pre-Industrial Revolution warming from CO2 alone would require about 90,000ppmv (9%) but we&#039;d never see it - CO2 becomes toxic at around 6,000ppmv (0.6%, although humans have absolutely no prospect of achieving such concentrations).&quot;

See http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ for some more information on CO2 and how it relates to the greenhouse effect. As always, take what you read on a heated topic like this with a grain of salt. The possiblity of us destroying the earth is a very emotional topic. 

But Greenhouse effect or not, We should all do out part to reduce our enviromental footprint.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While the movie has many good points, there are many misunderstandings around the science. Especially in relation to CO2 &amp; the Greenhouse Effect </p>
<p>&#8220;the temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic (that means there is a diminishing response as you keep adding more). If we consider the warming effect of the pre-Industrial Revolution atmospheric carbon dioxide (about 280 parts per million by volume or ppmv) as 1, then the first half of that heating was delivered by about 20ppmv (0.002% of atmosphere) while the second half required an additional 260ppmv (0.026%).</p>
<p>To double the pre-Industrial Revolution warming from CO2 alone would require about 90,000ppmv (9%) but we&#8217;d never see it &#8211; CO2 becomes toxic at around 6,000ppmv (0.6%, although humans have absolutely no prospect of achieving such concentrations).&#8221;</p>
<p>See <a href="http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/" rel="nofollow">http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/</a> for some more information on CO2 and how it relates to the greenhouse effect. As always, take what you read on a heated topic like this with a grain of salt. The possiblity of us destroying the earth is a very emotional topic. </p>
<p>But Greenhouse effect or not, We should all do out part to reduce our enviromental footprint.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.456 seconds -->
