Latest posts for the thread "Global Warming Explained"

Re: Global Warming Explained

Fulla Gasse — GMT

Can you give the reference to the show. Name of episode, program, any other identifiers?

Re: Global Warming Explained

Fulla Gasse — GMT

Well the only question in there is:

"How do scientists know the concentration of carbon dioxide over the millenniums? They collect ice core samples from Greenland and Antarctica and determine the carbon dioxide concentrations in the ice strata."

That is true. And we just went back several thousand years more due to the new science station in Antarctica. But higher resolution data are extracted from tree rings and carbon analysis. Also cores are taken in deep sea drilling operations which are analyzed for compostion.

Earth is always in an elliptical orbit. We are also wobbling about the spin axis, the change in climate due to this and possible explanation for the ice ages is called the Milankovitch Cycle. Its period is on the order of 10's of thousands of years. The most convincing data record is from Mona Loa on Hawaii where Thomas Keeling started montitoring CO2 levels in the last century.

The long records deal a lot with isotope ratios and compare on average three records to calibrate the histories. So Carbon and other chemicals are observed in sediment and ice cores and vary in how well things can be resolved based on how fast the substance was deposited and was able to trap the molecules with the signature.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

fentonh — GMT

"we should start planning soon to avoid difficulties as the decades roll on. Decades? Yes, I believe that we have a lot of time, but it is not unlimited."

I'm sorry but that statement is incorrect.
I just saw a talk by Lester R. Brown of the Earth Policy Institute. His organization provides data and illustrates trends on global warming and its consequences for (human) civilization. If interested, then the link is: http://www.earth-policy.org

You don't have decades. The basic message that his work has shown -and this is backed up by many other researchers is: the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by 80% must occur within the next TEN years NOT twenty years.

And for anyone in the peanut gallery who might squeak "just theory" or "environmentalist liberals". here is the link to the Chemical Society of Washington (part of the American Chemical Society) who hosted the talk. They give a brief background on his credentials towards the end of that second page: http://mem.../meet.html

Check it out if you dare

bye

fentonh

Re: Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

mconn — GMT

"OK, thanks. I agree that we should start planning soon to avoid difficulties as the decades roll on. Decades? Yes, I believe that we have a lot of time, but it is not unlimited."

I'm a firm believer in "tipping points" and don't think that the decades or slow trend towards climate change is a healthy one. We have never passed this way before under these circumstances as a species and would be fool hearty to minimize the urgency.

Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

AbbeyYoyo — GMT

The comment about polar ocean water light absorption may have had to do with the fact that ice reflects sunlight. The more open ocean without ice, the warmer the ocean becomes which in turn melts more ice.
Humans have lived through at least one ice age, but we have created new poisonous molecules that the earth has never seen before. The poisons are everywhere including marine life and the earth that we farm. So our ability to survive major climate changes will be compromised by these poisons we have introduced into the biosphere. We can argue about how much humans have contributed to global warming until all the glaciers are gone, but we will still have to deal with issues like water and global poisoning.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

irlandes — GMT

Answering this thread here, not just this posting. No one seems to notice that major reductions "just in case" are not hypothetically or maybe going to induce a world-wide depression. It will absolutely induce a world-wide depression. Just in case, doncha' know?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

jtsanders — GMT

OK, thanks. I agree that we should start planning soon to avoid difficulties as the decades roll on. Decades? Yes, I believe that we have a lot of time, but it is not unlimited.

Re: Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

Geschlechlichinginieur — GMT

The next to last paragraph in my last post is the "meat". It all boils down to this: it's better to be safe than to be sorry.

Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

jtsanders — GMT

What?! Please try again. There's to much static.

Re: Global Warming Explained

Geschlechlichinginieur — GMT

Hitler's propaganda minister, Goebbels, said that a lie repeated often and
loudly enough will be taken as truth. Some people believe, therefore, that
anything said loudly and often is a baldfaced malicious lie. The recent athletic
steroid scandals tend to reinforce that idea. However, rejecting any idea out of
hand is just as bad as accepting an idea without double checking.
Also, some environmentalists denigrate their credibility by padding their
arguments with junk science. Just yesterday, on my local public access cable
channel, a woman was saying that polar ocean water absorption of sunlight has
increased with the reduced polar icecap. That is not true because beyond seventy
two degrees latitude, the sun never gets high enough for its rays to penetrate
the surface of standing water. Sunlight always reflects from water beyond
seventy two degrees latitude.
The important thing is in that according to theory, global warming COULD happen
and COULD result in catastrophe, so, we must do all we can to prevent disaster.
The proportion of human activity to all sources of CO2 may be very small, but we
must avoid being the proverbial "straw that breaks the camel's back."
To our credit, we humans, unlike animals, respond to crises with innovation
rather than self-induced suffering.

Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

MikeInNH — GMT

The most likely result of global warming, according to historical evidence, is the start of a new ice age.

You took ONE Geology class while my daughter is finishing up her BS in Chemical Engineering at MIT. According to the historical evidence she's been studying as a Job with 3 WORLD RENOWNED Scientists they completely disagree with you. There is very solid evidence that Humans have a LOT to do with Global Warming. You can trace it right to the start of the industrial revolution. There have been fluctuations on CO2 levels throughout the worlds history...but there is a significant increase since we started polluting our air. The increase is far greater then any other point in time.

Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

jtsanders — GMT

"The most likely result of global warming, according to historical evidence, is the start of a new ice age."

Not directly, though an ice age would ensue at some later date. The first thing would be unknown changes in climate. Then would come flooding of anything under 100-feet above sea level. As mankind dies off due to the climate changes, natural cycles will be able to take over. Eventually the Earth will cool an go into an ice age in its own good time. Geologically, that might be a short time, but it will seem like an eternity for us, especially the ones who live through the mess.

Re: Global Warming Explained

Litahni — GMT

I'm a college student, and I just took a Geology class last term that discussed global warming and the Earth's cycles. We (humans) have been specks on this planet for only 10,000 years or so compared to the 4.6 billion years the Earth has existed. We are nothing but microbes on the back of a whale; inconsequential. Just as has always happened in the past, when the Earth gets tired of us she'll shake us off her back. The most likely result of global warming, according to historical evidence, is the start of a new ice age. The Earth will always heal itself through its cycles. That's how it works. The worst damage we could do is causing the next ice age a little sooner than would be normal. That won't hurt the Earth; it will just make our lives on it miserable. We like to think we're sooo important, but, in reality, we are nothing to this Earth or this Universe. Just specks.

Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

fentonh — GMT

Hi...I'm the guy who started the post in the first place (the one who lived in Edmonton, Alberta). I inquired with the Canadian Gov't office who produced the brochures (they also have transparent window decals):
Personal Vehicles Initiative/Programme des véhicules personnels
Transportation Energy Use Division/Division de l'utilisation de l'energie reliee au transport
Office of Energy Efficiency - Natural Resources Canada
Office de l'efficacité énergétique - Ressources Naturelles Canada
580 Booth Street, Ottawa, ON, K1A OE4
http://idling.gc.ca
http://marcheauralenti.gc.ca

The people with whom a corresponded have agreed to send me a few hundred brocheres and also fifty of the window decals. I told them that if it were possible for me to distribute them in a meaningful way, that I would come back for more.

Although not my original intention, it would be possible to distribute them to those who are interested... I can be contacted at fentonh [at] gmail.com or via my website http://www.freewebs.com/fentonh (send me a stamp or two for the postage).

There is a not-so-subtle irony that the Canadian government must step in to compensate for an unwillingness on the part of the US government to do anything but talk about a meaningful level of CO2 reduction.

Fenton

Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

jtsanders — GMT

We can get a head start by keeping our tires properly inflated and the cars properly tuned. The best way to conserve 10% to 20% of the gasoline and diesel fuel used is to slow down. If everyone drove the speed limit we could do just that. I know it's unpopular, but it is the quickest way to conserve energy and reduce CO2 generation. I go the speed limit for other reasons, but these are additional reasons to keep it up.

Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

Docnick — GMT

That would also save about $200 billion in oil imports, and strengthen the value of the dollar.

Re: Global Warming Explained

roblowe — GMT

I missed the show but have heard people talking about it. Driving smaller, more efficient vehicles is definitely what we need to do. The ultimate goal eventually being to total replace all vehicles on the road w/ hybrids, or fuel efficient ones.

Re: Re: Re: What can car drivers do to minimize carbon dioxide emissions?

Docnick — GMT

Good post! Energy and politics are always hard to separate. I believe, like you, that Canadians are more environmentally aware of what goes on in the world, and will support strong government action, when it comes, to cut energy consumption. I think they are also aware that reaching the low level of France, for instance, would be impossible since they live in a big, cold country that is a major mineral and energy producer for export.

Agree, idling your car is mostly a matter of common sense. I often see 300 HP SUVs pull up to the local recycling depot and the owner leaves the machine running while he/she sorts out the cans, bottle, newspares, etc.

Re: Re: What can car drivers do to minimize carbon dioxide emissions?

fentonh — GMT

Well, of course ten seconds does not apply to starting one's car at -20 °C....that's why block heaters are there. Those details are also on the link that I quoted. The brochure does not recommend stopping at "every" {quote ! :-) } stop light...it only addresses idling in general. I'm the nut that stops at traffic lights whose patterns I already know... ;-)

The oil reserves question is not unambiguous. I lived in Edmonton, Alberta, whose ecology is bearing the brunt of the tar sands development. The majority of the Canadian oil that is still underground is in the form of tar sands, and virtually all of the tar sands are in Alberta. I understand that (a) it takes one barrel of oil in energy to produce two barrels of oil from tar sand and (b) the only reason that the Canadian per capita carbon emissions are greater than those of the US is because of - oil production from tar sands. The previous Albertan governments furthermore gave Exxon et al. very favourable conditions to access the natural resources that they needed to process the oil sands. Of course a Canadian -which I am not- could explain this in much more vivid detail than I could.

However I did note that recent opinion poles "up there" gave the ordinary citizenry much more credit for understanding the connection between their activities on global warming. Much more credit than their Bush-esque Prime Minister deserved. For example, you might recall the global conference from last year on targeting emission levels, and the attitude taken by Cheney, Inc. The only other country supporting the US position was Canada. Then, the Alvarez organisation pulled together a petition to TELL the P. M. to support binding emission levels. I don't recall the exact numbers, but the petition pulled in roughly four times as many co-signees as intended. The P. M. consequently withdrew his support for the US position. You might recall that the US was then forced to accept a compromise, and no longer block the proceedings.

Re: What can car drivers do to minimize carbon dioxide emissions?

Docnick — GMT

I might take exception with the 10 SECONDS of idling,especially in cold weather, but idling does waste a lot of gas an pollutes the air, besides not being good for your car. Some months back we had an extensive post on this. The concluision was that too much idling was bad, but starting and stopping your car at every traffic light could cause trafic problems by those with finicky cars and slow responses.

It is ironic that Canada, a country with a small population, immense oil reserves, 600 years of coal, some of the richest uranium reserves and major gas deposits worries about fuel consumption and has gas guzzler taxes. Norway, another resource-rich country is equally committed to green house gas reduction.

What can car drivers do to minimize carbon dioxide emissions?

fentonh — GMT

A year back,I was temporarily living up north, During Earth Day 2007, I learned from some Canadian government representatives that it is more carbon-efficient to turn off a car's motor if it idles for longer than ten seconds. That's right: ten seconds. That also means that you save gas, i.e., money.

Since becoming aware of this, I time the traffic lights near to where I live. I have found it very easy to simply turn off the engine while waiting at a light that has a two-to-three minute cycle.
Back then, I picked up a brochure explaining this. Just yesterday, I looked for the brochure on the internet. It is no longer there, but the information contained within it is on the following web page:
http://oee...fm?attr=24

The Canadian Office of Energy Efficiency has however said that they will send copies of the brochure and also a transparent sticker for the windshield.

Some of you who use your cars more than I do might find this to be worthy of a conscientious effort. Since this is right off of the webs-site of a government that at least sometimes takes environmental protection more seriously than ours does, the eternal nay-sayers might think twice before trying to bark up this tree.

Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

Docnick — GMT

Agree; personal initiatives are important. Our house was built in 1979 with 2x4 walls, cedar siding and an ineffciient gas furnace.

We took up Al Gore's challenge of reducing our CO2 emissions by at least 10% over the 1990 levels.

Starting in 2004 when we returned from an overseas assignment, we did the following:

1. Fully insulated the basement with 6" of fibreglass.

2. Installed a high efficiency (98%) condensing gas furnace.

3. Installed new efficient water heater

4. Installed additional insulation in attic, improved weatherstripping

5. Changed 36 light bulbs with fluorescent ones; Xmas lights with LEDs

6. Traded 2 8cyl cars for 2 4cyl cars.

7. Bought battery operated lawnmower and compost clippings

8. Changed appliances with new Energy Star efficent ones.

The overall result was a 45% decrease in greenhouse gasses and an actual 42% reduction in energy (BTUs)used. Heating, for instance went from 252 million to 145 million BTUs (1450 therms); Electric power consumption from 9700 down to 7000 kilowatt hours. When we had Chevy Chase Christmas Vacation style lights in the 90s our electric bill showed 13,000 kilowatt hours!!

All these changes were cost-effective and the longest had a payback of just over 5 years.

Re: Global Warming Explained

mconn — GMT

We built our house 12 years ago. Small but well over 2.5K square feet. We live in central Maine and heat our house and domestic hot water on one double tank fill up for the entire year(<400 gallons). We use NO wood and run a generator with oil furnace a blazing when electricity runs out. This is old technology of 6' fiberglass insulated walls and with 1" polyurethane (sp) foam board under sheet rock on exterior walls and attention to tightness and sill insulation.

It added less than $1,000 in material to construction cost. It's amazing how many new houses are going up today with minimal code insulation and no thought to conservation that's a no brainer.

That's the kind of thinking and concervation we should be in tune with. It's not a big life style change. When we buy a new outboard, it's a 4 stroke, but we still use it as much as the old two stroke. Lifestyle changes that you can accomadate to and still do your part.

Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

irlandes — GMT

I don't know much about Windows any more, but I do know my Dell, which has Kubuntu on it, hibernates. That means it stores RAM in HD and shuts down. Booting normally means step by step by slow step loading every driver, every program, one at a time, back into RAM. Hibernate means it stays on HD, and when I start again, it simply rapidly copies the stored image back into Ram, without all the detection and building up. So, I can have a word processor page, partially typed,and if all works well, it is there when I start again.

So, I don't feel the need to leave things running.

I really don't know if Windows does that, but I sort of think it does.

Re: Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

jtsanders — GMT

There is actually some energy used when you use sleep mode rather than hibernation. That goes for the monitor, too. It can add up to considerable wattage when you consider that everyone with a computer might use sleep mode.

Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

Ron-man — GMT

Just like my Mac, my PC sleeps when not in use. Windows doesn't need to load each time it wakes up. The difference is that my Mac won't run most of the software that I use. Is this the answer to a car question?

Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

mconn — GMT

"(We know exactly why PCs are left on 24/7. A tiny bit of laziness and a lot of impatience waiting on the latest, lousy version of Windows to load.)"

I knew there was a reason to own a Mac.

Re: Global Warming Explained

ok4450 — GMT

It's still unclear to me how many of you have actual schooling in the meteorology/climatology field. Anything you know about this subject has to come from one of three places.
A. Meteorology school.
B. Self education from technical manuals on the subject.
C. Television, newspaper, Time magazine, etc.

If it comes from C then you belong in the surveyed professionals whose only knowledge is gleaned from general media sources.

Since I consider there to be a lot of hypocrisy on this subject let me ask this question.
Are you really, honestly, truly concerned about man's use of fossil fuel and do you leave your PC on 24/7?
According to Microsoft, doing that burns roughly 65 dollars worth of electricity per year as compared to turning it off when not in use. Multiply your PC X countless millions of others in the U.S. only.
(We know exactly why PCs are left on 24/7. A tiny bit of laziness and a lot of impatience waiting on the latest, lousy version of Windows to load.)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

jtsanders — GMT

I'm glad you finally found a use for your wife! ;-)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

MikeInNH — GMT

Only in a similar size. The large LCD TVs use twice the power of CRTs and large plasma displays use 3 times as much power as CRTs.

Agreed....3 years ago you could buy a 50" HDTV CRT....It used a LOT more energy then a 50" LCD....put out a LOT of heat...and took 2 men and a boy to lift it. My wife can easily lift our 40" Plasma.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

jtsanders — GMT

"New LCD TV's and monitors use far less electricity then the older Catho-Ray tubes."

Only in a similar size. The large LCD TVs use twice the power of CRTs and large plasma displays use 3 times as much power as CRTs. Your points are spot-on, but I thought I would make the distinction for those considering large TVs. I think the figures were for direct view TVs. I'm not sure how the relationship changes with DP or LCD projection units.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

irlandes — GMT

There have been several new power plants built within a few miles of my mobile home in Texas, in the last few years. None of them uses coal, but natural gas, which I believe is local in nature. When they were built, there were no protestors; no major law suits trying to stop them like in most places. As a result, our electrical rates are almost obscenely low. At one time, California, with all its environmental rules stopping new generators, sued us for charging them too much to sell them electicity. They seemed to think since they chose not to produce electricity themselves, we owe it to them at whatever price they want to pay.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

Docnick — GMT

A barrel of crude (42 gallons) oil is refined in roughly 19.4 gallons (46.2%) gassoline, 4.1 gallons of kerosine type jet fuel (9.8%), 10.5 gallons (25%)of diesel and heating oil. The rest other products, such ass lube oil, aspalt, etc.

Cars thus take 46.2 % of the barrel and trucks about one half of the 25%, or 12% of the diesel/heating, and about 10% goes to jet fuel.

The total for transportation is thus 46.2+9.8+12=68%

In North America and Europe the use of the fuel is determined by car needs, less gasoline would mean less residual oil and asphalt, and greatly reduced crude oil needs.

Only in poor countries with few cars does gasoline not play an important role.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

MikeInNH — GMT

The fact is, light truck and car use of fuel, primarily gasoline, is a small portion of our oil usage relative to the whole.

Wrong again....

In the following link...look at US Product by consumption. Click on the Graph. Gasoline vehicles account for the VAST majority of our oil consumption.

http://www...%20Product

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

Skipper — GMT

HUH???? You're adding the cost of energy to build and ship a LCD TV or monitor..but NOT deducting the energy to build a regular Catho-Ray Tube TV. The cost of building and shipping a Catho-Ray TV is FAR MORE COSTLY then a LCD TV. The REAL reason stores like Best-Buy and Wall-Mart are phasing out the Catho-Tv's is because of cost of shipping and storage. A 32" LCD TV weighs about 1/3 of my 27" Sony Trinitron.

You're making a comparison of owning a LCD TV and NOT owning a TV altogether. BTW...there are Catho-Ray TV's that have a digital signal AND are HDTV...in fact the quality of these TV's is better then plasma or LCD...It just takes up a LOT more room and uses a LOT more energy to run.

No, what I'm saying is if you already have a tv and it works perfectly fine, you aren't going to save the planet by rushing out to buy a new eco friendly tv. That's one of our problems, we have a throw away society. That old Tv, you have to do something with it? Sell it to someone else who'll use it anyway? Throw it away which has to be hauled to a landfill and buried? Put it on the front porch and use it to set your beer on while rocking in your rocking chair watching the cars go by? What you are talking about would save fractions of an amount of electricity, but the energy used saving those fractions is pretty obviously more than you'd save.

Skip

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

MikeInNH — GMT

You green guys raise holy hell when someone wants to build a coal fired power plant in Eastern Kentucky and end up forcing the plant to be built in Texas.

Gee...I don't know about you...but I like breathing Nitrogen and Oxygen....NOT CO2 and toxic fumes from a Coal plant. The coal industry is NOT putting any money into trying to build a single plant that can burn cleanly. It's NOT in their best interest.

The Tree huggers and lawyers have combined to make it impractical for industry to operate in this country to the point that 99% of our goods are being made in China and Mexico.

Tree hugers and lawyers have NOTHING to do with our goods being shipped overseas. IT'S CALLED GREED. If it's the tree hugers and lawyers causing the jobs going over-seas...why are Software Engineering Jobs going over seas???? Or accounting...or Chemical Engineering...or Bio-Technology??? What does the tree hugers have to do with them???...I'LL TELL YOU....NOTHING...Same with the clothes or shoes you buy....NOTHING. It's CHEAP labor....VERY CHEAP labor. I can't even pay my property taxes on the salaries they pay Software Engineers in China.

As far as replacing tv's with LCD's, that's all good and well, and probably happening as we speak thanks to whoever's idea it was to change from analog to digital tv signals. That said, there's no way that one could possibly save enough energy switching from aa Tube tv to a newfangled flat tv to cover the amount of energy used to mine the materials to make the tv, haul those materials to a processing plant, Process those materials into tv part, haul those parts to assembly plants that put the tv together, then ship the tv 6000 miles over the ocean to a container yard, haul it across the country by rail, ship it by UPS from the warehouse, go fetch it in your neighbor's truck because it won't fit in your Geo Metro. Each of those steps uses energy and unless the savings is close to 100% in energy, it's just not justifiable. It's the same theorem being perpetrated to turn corn into moonshine fuel. Sounds like a good idea, and makes people think they are doing something, but in reality, it's a wheel spinner at best.

HUH???? You're adding the cost of energy to build and ship a LCD TV or monitor..but NOT deducting the energy to build a regular Catho-Ray Tube TV. The cost of building and shipping a Catho-Ray TV is FAR MORE COSTLY then a LCD TV. The REAL reason stores like Best-Buy and Wall-Mart are phasing out the Catho-Tv's is because of cost of shipping and storage. A 32" LCD TV weighs about 1/3 of my 27" Sony Trinitron.

You're making a comparison of owning a LCD TV and NOT owning a TV altogether. BTW...there are Catho-Ray TV's that have a digital signal AND are HDTV...in fact the quality of these TV's is better then plasma or LCD...It just takes up a LOT more room and uses a LOT more energy to run.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

Skipper — GMT

Your article says 2/3 of oil is used for transportation. That's a pretty dadgum broad statement. I'm talking about cars and light trucks. Transportation includes heavy trucks, railroads, ships, and airplanes. It may or may not also include running the pumping equipment that delivers the gas and diesel by pipeline.

The fact is, light truck and car use of fuel, primarily gasoline, is a small portion of our oil usage relative to the whole.

You are correct, Coal and Natural Gas along with Nuclear provide most of our power. However, during peak times, most peak generators are oil or diesel. When they are running, they are really burning some serious fuel.

You green guys raise holy hell when someone wants to build a coal fired power plant in Eastern Kentucky and end up forcing the plant to be built in Texas. That just means a lot of extra transportation expense to haul the coal from the mines in Kentucky to the plant in Texas. Far cheaper and easier it would be to ship electricity from Kentucky to the east coast than it would be to ship coal to Texas and then electricity back East. Then you wonder why our oil consupmtion is in the clouds?

The Tree huggers and lawyers have combined to make it impractical for industry to operate in this country to the point that 99% of our goods are being made in China and Mexico. It's requiring us to ship ore, coal, and lumber there, then ship the goods back. Recongn if there weren't so many class action lawsuits against manufacturers and so much red tape to build a manufacturing plant that we might save fuel making McDonalds Happy meal toys in the USA somewhere? Nah, it couldn't be that simple could it?

As far as replacing tv's with LCD's, that's all good and well, and probably happening as we speak thanks to whoever's idea it was to change from analog to digital tv signals. That said, there's no way that one could possibly save enough energy switching from aa Tube tv to a newfangled flat tv to cover the amount of energy used to mine the materials to make the tv, haul those materials to a processing plant, Process those materials into tv part, haul those parts to assembly plants that put the tv together, then ship the tv 6000 miles over the ocean to a container yard, haul it across the country by rail, ship it by UPS from the warehouse, go fetch it in your neighbor's truck because it won't fit in your Geo Metro. Each of those steps uses energy and unless the savings is close to 100% in energy, it's just not justifiable. It's the same theorem being perpetrated to turn corn into moonshine fuel. Sounds like a good idea, and makes people think they are doing something, but in reality, it's a wheel spinner at best.

Skip

Re: Re: Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

MikeInNH — GMT

Remember, cars and light trucks only consume about 13% of the oil we use in this country.

http://www...usage.html

WRONG...Quote from Attached article....About two-thirds of U.S. oil usage is for transportation, primarily for automobiles. It might be 13% TOTAL energy is used by auto's...NOT oil though. Electrical plants in the US mainly use Coal and Natural Gas and Nuclear. Very few use oil.

http://www.nef1.org/ea/eastats.html

The problem is, the only way to do that is kill off a significant portion of the population.

Very narrow minded. There are MANY ways to reduce energy consumption. Solar has made DRASTIC strides in the past year. Solar panels today are producing 2-3 times the amount of electricity they were just 10 years ago for the same square area. New technologies in solar are predicting another 200 - 300% increase by 2015. The payback for a solar system is 10 years. It was 30 years just 10 years ago. By 2015 it's predicted to be less then 5 years.

New low-power light-bulbs DRASTICALLY reduce electrical usage. New LCD TV's and monitors use far less electricity then the older Catho-Ray tubes.

With technology that's available TODAY. We can reduce our consumption of energy by 30%. That's a significant savings.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

irlandes — GMT

This deal of cow methane was another hoax. Quite a few years ago, a reporter encountered an inter-office memo of the joke sort at the EPA, which made this humorous claim that cow methane was the principle source of air contamination. He thought it was serious -- MS journalists aren't too smart, or we wouldn't have this GW hoax and would not have had the R-12 hoax -- and it hit the presses. The EPA leader at the time spent years trying to squelch the hoax with no success, but it is still there.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

Skipper — GMT

Eat less meat (cow farts are a major source of methane, a worse greenhouse gas than CO2).

You don't want to be in the room with me after soup beans.

Skip

Re: Re: Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

melott — GMT

Actually, that's wrong. Many studies have shown that in the short term, the easiest and quickest way to cut our carbon emissions is to conserve. More effective and cheaper in the short run than changing sources. Of course new sources are needed, but that can't be done fast.

Walk or use public transport sometimes. Plug air leaks and insulate your home. Transition to compact fluorescent light bulbs. Consider energy use in all purchases. Eat less meat (cow farts are a major source of methane, a worse greenhouse gas than CO2).

Support research and development in alternate fuel sources, including fusion, for which the government has recently cut research funding.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

mconn — GMT

" There's nothing wrong with clean air and clean water."

Well, there's a step in the right direction. Now if we can say that perhaps clean water and air are preferred, then we would be in agreement.

I'm not in favor of lowering my energy consumption one bit. I am in favor of making decisions independently. If two alternatives for producing sufficient energy cost the same (ethanol definitely excluded) and one is the most enviornmentally friendly, that should be our choice.

Who could argue with that.....at times it is necessary to listen to the "greenies". Everyone has valid options.

Re: Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

Skipper — GMT

When do you plan on being energy independent?

We've converted electric utility plants from coal to "cleaner" burning oil and natural gas plants over the last couple of decades. Meanwhile we export our coal to China where they burn it to power their industrial machine. Remember, cars and light trucks only consume about 13% of the oil we use in this country. The largest users are electrical generation. Since I don't see us doing without electricity any time soon, wouldn't we be better off to generate power from our own coal, hydro electric power, solar, wind, and nuclear plants? Of course we would, but it's not going to happen because the oil companies want us to continue consuming oil. What better way than using it to generate electricity that uses far more than automobiles ever will.

There's the insane notion that we can substitute ethanol for gasoline. What's it got us? High corn prices, high wheat prices because wheat land is being planted in corn for more profit, high beef prices because cattle are fed high priced corn, high bread and cereal prices because they are made with wheat. What we haven't got is a viable alternative fuel. When it take 1 gallon of fuel or nearly so to produce 1 gallon of ethanol, we aren't gaining anything.

There's nothing wrong with clean air and clean water. There is a problem with economically providing the basic needs of people being food, water, and shelter. A lot of the global warming initiatives aren't practical because people aren't going to accept not having their air conditioners, heat pumps, computers, televisions, etc.

If you figure out how to reduce the electricity demand, fresh water demand, food demand, and shelter demands of 250 million people in the US, you'll figure out how to reduce the consumption of fuels. The problem is, the only way to do that is kill off a significant portion of the population.

Skip

Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

mconn — GMT

It's sad some people pay absolutely no attention to science until they have a need, usually medical in nature.
Yes "skipper" we can have an effect om our climate. Remember, our atmosphere is as thick as the paint on a globe that represents our planet proportionately. No we don't have the ability to alter the amount of energy that our planet gets from the sun, but how that energy is dispersed is well under our control over time.

To deny this is to retreat back into the "freon" age. Let's say it is a hoax. What's wrong with cleaner air and energy independance, and getting energy directly from the sun instead of through poluting "liquid gold".

Oh, excuse me.....greeney's just want your money, it's the oil companies that are the benevolent ones that are looking out for our health and interest. Guess I had it all wrong.

Re: Global Warming Explained

Skipper — GMT

Global warming is complete horse crap IMO. It's designed for the sole purpose of bilking money out of the American public to be turned over to people to research a non problem or at the very least, a problem we can't do diddly about.

The fact is, there's no way that Man has the power or ability to alter the amount of energy this planet gets from the sun. The sun is the primary source of energy for this planet and it's much larger than the pin heads on CNN who are touting this economic doom and gloom business.

The fact is, the earth, has gone through periods of warming and cooling for millions of years. Western Kentucky used to be a sea. It's not anymore, far from it. Cars have been around just over 100 years. We've been burning coal and other fossil fuels for around 400 years. Yet the historical climate changes on this planet have taken place over much larger time periods.

The tv meteorologists can't predict the weather for tomorrow much less 100 years from now. Back when I was in school, they were preaching a coming ice age using the exact same reasons now being used for Global Warming. IMO, this is nothing but a hoax being perpetrated on the public for the purpose of raising taxes and to regulate activity.

Skip

Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

Docnick — GMT

Agree that the Iraq war, costing $2.9 TRILLION so far, could finance an enormous amount of renewable energy. It would buy a great many solar farms that could produce an immense amount of electricity which could power plug-in hybrids. Instead, it has not produced a single extra barrel of oil for anyone. It must go down in history as one of the great miscalculations of the century, rivalling Hannibal's invasion of the Roman Empire with elephants crossing the Alps, Napolean's attempt to conquer Russia, Hitler's attempt to conquer Russia, the French Indo-China War, the Vietnam War, the Japanese bombing of Pearl harbor, and others. But I digress.

Once resources are focused on developing new technology, the progress is rapid. The price of solar electricty is dropping fast; the Chinese are now the leaders in the development of low cost photovoltaic cells.

Going to war over resources is an outdated and counter-productive activity in a globalized world. Neither the secretary of state or the marine corps can give a us single reliable barrel of oil.

Re: Global Warming Explained

westnlas — GMT

I know the controversy is there, but what if we actually are destroying the atmosphere with pollution. The oceans are becoming too polluted to sustain the marine life. I mean, what if there is a tipping point and we go past it? There are many methods of renewable energy available, but we don't even try. There are farms in the world that consume less energy in a year than an SUV does in a day. With the money we spend on wars to guarantee uninterrupted oil supplies, couldn't we at least look at something else?

Re: Global Warming Explained

ok4450 — GMT

A question or two for Logics. What is your field of expertise? Meteorology or Climatology?

If either of the two you should be familiar with the U.N IPCC report.
If so, do you agree with it?

Re: Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

Docnick — GMT

CO2 is necesary for life on nearth, the question is how much is the right amount. Together with other greenhuse gasses, such as water vapor, methane, and others, we need the right amount to make us comfortable. If we can tolerate the rise in ocean levels, as have our acestors, we can handle higher tempoeratures, but some people in dry countires with nowhere to go will suffer.

Bjorn Lomberg, a Danish climatologist believes in Global Warming, but is more optimistic. His book, "Cool It!", lays out plan for coping with it.

The progonosis for the US is that the South (especially the SW) will be much drier and hotter, the North warmer and about the dryness, and Alaska will be much warmer and wetter, with agriculture practicable. Canada on the whole will be wetter and warmer, as will Russia. Those 2 countries will actually benefit from Global Warming.

Re: Re: Re: Global Warming Explained

MrPhil — GMT

Yes, Venus is a bit closer to the Sun (approxmately 75% of the Earth's distance, if I recall correctly). Assuming .75AU, Venus should receive (1/.75)^2 = 1.78 times as much sunlight per square meter. Some is reflected away by Venus's bright white clouds, but enough gets through to raise the temperature (in Kelvins) much hotter than if it had an Earth-like atmosphere. This is considered Exhibit A of the CO2 Greenhouse Effect.

The Little Ice Age was apparently due to a drop in solar activity (noted by the great reduction in sunspots). No asteroids involved. Asteroid impacts appear to have caused tremendous cooling (due to smoke and dust), and then tremendous heating (due to sulfur compounds as the dust settled out).

Yes, I obviously know far more than you. Go get your GED and then a graduate degree or two and maybe we can have an intelligent conversation.