| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/21/2006 03:09:04 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
Hey Doc. It will be interesting to see those values from 1999 updated if it is proven that green plants do emit the upward end of the 62â236 Tg per year. That should knock the man made figures down to around 25-30%. |
Basically it looks like we need to learn how to hook our car up to the rear end of a cow....
Sweet! LMAO
I need a cow...
Message edited by author 2006-04-21 15:15:10. |
|
|
|
04/21/2006 03:11:35 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Hey Doc. It will be interesting to see those values from 1999 updated if it is proven that green plants do emit the upward end of the 62â236 Tg per year. That should knock the man made figures down to around 25-30%. |
Sweet! LMAO |
Yep. See how we can do our part to save the earth by actually doing nothing. 8>)
Edit: Sorry, meant to put the tags up. :)
Message edited by author 2006-04-21 15:12:18.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2006 10:56:29 AM · #28 |
The original article in this thread is propaganda.
The author of that article Steven Milloy is a paid advocate for Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil and other corporations.
At least start a debate on an issue with facts: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming |
|
|
|
04/22/2006 05:42:53 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
The original article in this thread is propaganda.
The author of that article Steven Milloy is a paid advocate for Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil and other corporations.
At least start a debate on an issue with facts: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming |
So you believe that the original article is erroneous or you just don't like the author?
|
|
|
|
04/22/2006 05:47:09 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
The original article in this thread is propaganda. |
Coming from you that truly made me smile :-]
|
|
|
|
04/23/2006 10:26:53 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
The original article in this thread is propaganda. |
Coming from you that truly made me smile :-] |
Whatever floats your boat.
But you of course are not addressing that the author is a paid liar employed by companies that want people to ignore global warming because itâs bad for business and that the article you posted is horse shit. Again I post information about Steven Milloy.
And again, if you want to learn about a subject in science, Fox News is a bad place to start, try here: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming or here //www.ipcc.ch/
Message edited by author 2006-04-23 10:35:07. |
|
|
|
04/23/2006 11:14:16 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
The original article in this thread is propaganda. |
Coming from you that truly made me smile :-] |
Whatever floats your boat.
But you of course are not addressing that the author is a paid liar employed by companies that want people to ignore global warming because itâs bad for business and that the article you posted is horse shit. Again I post information about Steven Milloy.
And again, if you want to learn about a subject in science, Fox News is a bad place to start, try here: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming or here //www.ipcc.ch/ |
Sorry but you are not addressing the fact that nobody is discussing that article. Heck, I didn't even click the link. We had a good discussion going and it's over now. Do you have any personal experiences on this issue to discuss or do you just have another link?
|
|
|
|
04/23/2006 12:18:54 PM · #33 |
Hmmm, I don't even have a link, but I have an interesting article that is in todays NY Times in the Week in Review regarding global warming and the deabate about it.
From the article
"There is no serious debate any more about one thing: more of these gases will cause more warming. Dr. Lindzen, who contends any human climate influence is negligible and has long criticized those calling global warming a catastrophe, agreed on this basic fact in his article."
Anyways, it's free, and no it's not a lefty liberal op-ed piece (ala Maureen Dowd). It's a well written, fairly balanced (IMHO) piece about the debate on global warming.
Registration is free. It's in the Week In Review section
Edit: Because even Team Suck members can't spell
Message edited by author 2006-04-23 12:21:22.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2006 12:39:33 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
But you of course are not addressing that the author is a paid liar employed by companies that want people to ignore global warming because itâs bad for business and that the article you posted is horse shit. Again I post information about ... |
I read your links the first time. Especially the part where Steve has substantial education including an MA, JD and a Masters in Law. Regardless of his position or his favoring one side over the other, his credentials took a bit of work to get. Work that no doubt placed him in proximity to many left leaning liberal minded professors. His current "mission" is not wrong simply because he is paid by corporations. Even corporations with an agenda. If his positions are wrong, then I would hope that you would argue against them, rather than simply stating that because of his "payers" then all his published wordsare wrong. This may be true, but not because of his receipt of funds from Exon etc. I suspect that he is correct, regardless of who is funding his passion.
By the logic of your argument against Steve, then I would surmise that any published writing endorsed or paid for by a "positioned" group would be unworthy of discussion due to its inherrent "propaganda". Therefore, we can exclude any political discussions this year where information is supported or put forth by groups like MoveOn.org and their like.
Regarding Steve being a liar, I believe that it is far from conclusive, and more likely that "Global Warming" is in fact a case of Chicken Little crying "the sky is falling"...as is evidenced by the multitudes of scholars who hold a similar view as Steve.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2006 06:43:56 PM · #35 |
But are we not just getting lost in the arguements - does it really matter if this specific theory is true or false (seriously)?
- Does anybody think that we really fully understand the complex relationships on this planet and the long-term effects? We still find new creatures whenever we look in the deep ocean.
- Does anybody think that reducing output would cause any environmental damage?
- Given the consequence if warming is occuring - should we not at least act as though it's right until there is sufficient understanding to ensure it is not happening - and bet all our lives on it.
Seems obvious to me regardless of the arguments. |
|
|
|
04/23/2006 08:20:14 PM · #36 |
I believe that "responsible stewardship" is good on a vast range and number of topics. That action is however, different than "restricting" actions based on the agenda of a few.
The definition of "responsible" is where much of the argument lies.
as a complete aside but to illustrate a point, during Gore's bid for the presidency, a radio station (I do not recall the one), took excerpts from both Gore's Treatise on the Enviornment and the Unabombers Manifesto, and asked listeners to identify which quote came from which source. It was a dismal failure on the part of listeners to identify who wrote what. The point being that there is concensus on the lunacy of the Unabombers writings, yet Gore is promoting a new movie based on his equally disturbing writings.
Message edited by author 2006-04-23 20:33:36.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2006 10:55:33 PM · #37 |
The scientific opinion on climate change, as expressed in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report in 2001 and explicitly endorsed by the national science academies of the G8 nations in 2005, is that the average global temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and that it is likely that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess the "risk of human-induced climate change". The Panel is open to all members of the WMO and UNEP.
IPCC reports are widely cited in almost any debate related to climate change. The reports have been influential in forming national and international responses to climate change. A small but vocal minority (less than 1.5%) of the scientists involved with the report have accused the IPCC of bias.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2006 09:55:03 AM · #38 |
Can you or your sources dispute this quote from the article:
"Greenhouses work by physically blocking heat transfer (by convection) from inside to outside â the same effect that heats the inside of your car when itâs parked in the sun on a hot day. Opening the doors and windows allows air currents to flow and the heat to dissipate.
But neither the atmosphere nor âgreenhouse gasesâ block convection, so there is no literal atmospheric âgreenhouse effect.â"
Or this one:
"As illustrated by this graphic, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from pre-Industrial Revolution days (280 parts per million to 560 ppm), might increase global temperature from between 0.5 degrees Centigrade to 1.5 degrees Centigrade â that is, not much.
The current atmospheric CO2 level is about 380 ppm and the estimated temperature increase since 1880 (when regular temperature recordkeeping began) is estimated to be about 0.60 degrees Centigrade.
Since at least half of this temperature increase pre-dated 1950 â prior to any significant increase in atmospheric CO2 levels â we can estimate that the 30 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution is associated with a temperature increase of about 0.30 degrees Centigrade. This supports the idea that doubling atmospheric CO2 from pre-Industrial Revolution levels would cause less than a one degree Centigrade increase â and weâre not close to such a doubling."
Message edited by author 2006-04-24 10:04:29.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2006 10:21:38 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Can you or your sources dispute this quote from the article:
"Greenhouses work by physically blocking heat transfer (by convection) from inside to outside â the same effect that heats the inside of your car when itâs parked in the sun on a hot day. Opening the doors and windows allows air currents to flow and the heat to dissipate.
But neither the atmosphere nor âgreenhouse gasesâ block convection, so there is no literal atmospheric âgreenhouse effect.â"
Or this one:
"As illustrated by this graphic, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from pre-Industrial Revolution days (280 parts per million to 560 ppm), might increase global temperature from between 0.5 degrees Centigrade to 1.5 degrees Centigrade â that is, not much.
The current atmospheric CO2 level is about 380 ppm and the estimated temperature increase since 1880 (when regular temperature recordkeeping began) is estimated to be about 0.60 degrees Centigrade.
Since at least half of this temperature increase pre-dated 1950 â prior to any significant increase in atmospheric CO2 levels â we can estimate that the 30 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution is associated with a temperature increase of about 0.30 degrees Centigrade. This supports the idea that doubling atmospheric CO2 from pre-Industrial Revolution levels would cause less than a one degree Centigrade increase â and weâre not close to such a doubling." |
A one degree centigrade change in the global atmosphere will have an affect on various global climatology things that will in turn affect things like the temperature of the ocean.
A 0.5C - 1.5 degC may not seem like much to some, but considering that since the industrial revolution, there have been global consequences of this 'not so much' increase in temperature. Examples include various arctic animals having problems breeding due to thinner ice, inuits having problems hunting due to thinner ice, and a documented increase in the intensities of global weather phenomena like El Nino.
There have been numerous documents about coral bleaching occuring due to a slight change in ocean temperatures.
As for getting hung up on tehcnicalities on whether or not it is really a TRUE greenhouse effect is sort of like missing the forest for the trees. See my earlier post about making things easier for the masses. The layer of the atmosphere that does contain the greenhouse gases reflects infrared heat irradiated by the planets surface back onto the surface making the planet hospitable for us. I'n not quite sure about this convection, because all heat is, is waves, and if I'm not mistaken, infrared is a wave? I suppose if convection isn't infrared, then fine, technically he's right, but bottom line is the greenhouse gases make the planet a hospitable climate for us, and that scientists agree that an increase in the output of greenhouse agses will have a direct correlation to the global temperature (see the NY Times article I cited earlier) And yes I have a source for the infrared radiation somewhere in a scientific journal.
I mean, the current president of the United States has a tendancy to miss pronounce nuclear. Does that mean he's not REALLY talking about nuclear and it's all junk science?
Bottom line is, sitting here and arguing about who is right about global warming isn't going to change your view on it or my view necessarily. As was stated earlier, it doesn't matter whose mouth it's coming from, North Americans need to relook at themselves and realize that we can't keep consuming at the rate that we are.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2006 11:29:19 AM · #40 |
Found this post by the NOAA
The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Warming, assisted by the record El Niño of 1997-1998, has continued right up to the present, with 2001 being the second warmest year on record after 1998.
//www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Are El Niños related to Global Warming?
El Niños are not caused by global warming. Clear evidence exists from a variety of sources (including archaeological studies) that El Niños have been present for hundreds, and some indicators suggest maybe millions, of years. However, it has been hypothesized that warmer global sea surface temperatures can enhance the El Niño phenomenon, and it is also true that El Niños have been more frequent and intense in recent decades. Recent climate model results that simulate the 21st century with increased greenhouse gases suggest that El Niño-like sea surface temperature patterns in the tropical Pacific are likely to be more persistent.
NOAA
I was particularly struck by this sentence...
Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century.
The South Eastern US has seen a large influx of increased population. This large population drives vehicles which should increase temperature, if our vehicle emmisions were the root cause of this "global temperature increase".
Edit: Please do not mistake my challenges to a belief that good stewardship is not admirable. I clearly believe it is. I simply do not fall prey to arguments that fail the common sense test.
Message edited by author 2006-04-24 11:35:54.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 10:14:49 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:
But another thing that has to addressed is CO2 when a human exhales. Ok the CO2 level is about 75% greater now than 650,000 years ago. But how may more people live on the earth now vs. 650,000 years ago. Over 6,000,000,000 people will produce a lot of CO2 and combine that with urban development (plan and tree reduction) there are bound to be greater CO2 levels ppmv.
ETA: with the average human producing 900 grams of CO2 per day that mean that the world population produces 5400000000000 (5400 trillion grams) of CO2 per day on average. |
Let's think about the USA: you say the average human exhales 900 grams of CO2/day.
=======
Carbonfund.org CO2 production calculations
Unleaded gasoline has 8.87 kg (19.56lbs) of CO2 per gallon
=======
So, burning one gallon of gas = about 9 humans living for one day. I bet, in this country, there's more than 1/10 gallon of fuel burned per person per day on the highways alone, not counting coal- and natural gas-fired electricity generation, home heating oil, and natural gas heating and cooking.
You are absolutely correct that there are just too many people, but not because we breathe. If we still lived the hunter/gatherer or agricultural existence we evolved in, we'd likely not be facing the greenhouse gas problem.
It is the fact that each of us -- as a result of our westernized, indusrialized, technological, commodity-based society -- produces about 100 times our "natural" level CO2 which is causing the current situation.
Now, as to the logic of what to do ... I rather liken the situation to Decartes' (I think) analysis in favor of being Catholic; roughly, if you follow Catholicism and the Catholics are wrong, little harm done, but if you live as a committed Atheist and the Atheists are wrong, well, fire and brimstone sounds unpleasant to just about everybody.
If "the environmentalists" are wrong, we get a changing economy in which a few megacorporations may have to be just a little less mega, and a somewhat simpler and less wasteful and impactful life will have to be lead by all.
If the "it's all a bunch of hype" group is wrong, we drown our coastal areas (probably including Wall Street) and cause severe shifts in climate which may cause multiple extinctions, possibly including humans. With this scenario I think there's a greater chance of experiencing a future resembling Mad Max than Utopia. |
|
|
|
12/21/2006 12:11:10 AM · #42 |
I like your analogy General.
I definately don't want to be responsible for my kids and grandkids to have to go to Lake Erie for a tropical beach! |
|
|
|
12/21/2006 02:17:40 PM · #43 |
Exactly my thoughts..
It could all be hype,sheer falicy and the environmentalists could be completely wrong but the little bit of extra TLC to the planet can't be a bad thing, can it... Do people really want to test this planet's limits...
Besides emmisions don't end at Co2... The lovely water we get near factories should be a staple at lunch time for all those who find their outputs to be completely innocuous.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 01:01:55 PM · #44 |
Very well said.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:
But another thing that has to addressed is CO2 when a human exhales. Ok the CO2 level is about 75% greater now than 650,000 years ago. But how may more people live on the earth now vs. 650,000 years ago. Over 6,000,000,000 people will produce a lot of CO2 and combine that with urban development (plan and tree reduction) there are bound to be greater CO2 levels ppmv.
ETA: with the average human producing 900 grams of CO2 per day that mean that the world population produces 5400000000000 (5400 trillion grams) of CO2 per day on average. |
Let's think about the USA: you say the average human exhales 900 grams of CO2/day.
=======
Carbonfund.org CO2 production calculations
Unleaded gasoline has 8.87 kg (19.56lbs) of CO2 per gallon
=======
So, burning one gallon of gas = about 9 humans living for one day. I bet, in this country, there's more than 1/10 gallon of fuel burned per person per day on the highways alone, not counting coal- and natural gas-fired electricity generation, home heating oil, and natural gas heating and cooking.
You are absolutely correct that there are just too many people, but not because we breathe. If we still lived the hunter/gatherer or agricultural existence we evolved in, we'd likely not be facing the greenhouse gas problem.
It is the fact that each of us -- as a result of our westernized, indusrialized, technological, commodity-based society -- produces about 100 times our "natural" level CO2 which is causing the current situation.
Now, as to the logic of what to do ... I rather liken the situation to Decartes' (I think) analysis in favor of being Catholic; roughly, if you follow Catholicism and the Catholics are wrong, little harm done, but if you live as a committed Atheist and the Atheists are wrong, well, fire and brimstone sounds unpleasant to just about everybody.
If "the environmentalists" are wrong, we get a changing economy in which a few megacorporations may have to be just a little less mega, and a somewhat simpler and less wasteful and impactful life will have to be lead by all.
If the "it's all a bunch of hype" group is wrong, we drown our coastal areas (probably including Wall Street) and cause severe shifts in climate which may cause multiple extinctions, possibly including humans. With this scenario I think there's a greater chance of experiencing a future resembling Mad Max than Utopia. |
|
|
|
|
12/22/2006 01:44:24 PM · #45 |
"Trees emit unwanted gases? Heck..... I always thought they gave us oxygen."
Actual, there are very complex patterns. Trees give off O2 when photosynthesizing. There are times in cycles in which trees and plants can actually put out CO2. It is more prominent when the plants are unhealthy or dying.
Originally posted by "DrAchoo":
Trees take in CO2 and use it in photosynthesis to make glucose. Diatom plankton take in CO2 and use it to make their calcium carbonate shells. They then sink to the bottom of the ocean to be turned into the white cliffs of dover. |
Just out of curiosity. How high are the cliffs of dover?
If those are diatoms that sunk to the bottom. That's pretty darn high up. ;)
Also, regarding the charts: I always dismiss "Ruminants (Livestock) 115" contribution to methane. As the fact that there were once millions and millions of buffalo roaming the U.S. along with a great many more heard animals. It seems to be a fair balance. That said, it's not as happy a balance. No more hunting the purple buffalo. :(
Originally posted by "GeneralE":
Unleaded gasoline has 8.87 kg (19.56lbs) of CO2 per gallon |
I just want to address how much fud there is. I hear a lot about credibility. Well, let's talk real credibility. I am going to assume that the 8.87kg or nearly 20lbs of CO2 per gallon is based on an assumptive view trying to create a theoretical figure of how much CO2 is made from the entire process of extracting, converting, etc.
Because otherwise, I'd find this very suspect. Their claim is that there is 20 lbs of CO2 per gallon of gas. Well, shiver me timbers, we've found a way to void the three laws of thermodynamics.
However, the avg weight of a gallon of gasoline is approx. 6lbs. So this site is informing people that from 6lbs of total material we result in 20lbs of CO2. Even if we had a solid block of Carbon atoms and added twice that number of Oxygen atoms in order to create CO2 we'd still only end up at 18lbs. And this would assume a 100% conversion and that our hydrocarbon based gasoline molecules were 100% carbon. Which they are not.
CAN WE SAY FUD!!!!!!
Now, I've just had to waste a half hour in order to substantiate the issues involved. In order to combat the raging alarmist fud all over. So is there any doubt as to why I have the attitude that I do. I've gone repeatedly into these things and many others to find them full of FUD. But the problem is there are so many people getting fed it that I keep encountering the issue over and over again.
THAT SAID, NO ONE (on the global warming alarmist side) EVER SEEMS TO RESPOND TO COMMENTS I'VE MADE REGARDING BOTH MARS AND PLUTO SHOWING SIGNS OF WARMING.
Gallon of gas = approx 6lbs
//www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-03/984671745.Ch.r.html
//www.faqfarm.com/Q/How_much_more_does_a_gallon_water_weigh_than_a_gallon_of_gasoline
So I wind up annoyed at having to constantly waste my time...and then, real environmental issues and the necessary technology development to remediate them goes unaddressed. This doesn't mean we shouldn't reduce emmissions. I think we need to cease using the I.C.E. completely. But...there are so many factors that need to be addressed and the fear-mongering politics of the present global warming alarmists makes it near impossible.
It pushes people AWAY from environmentalism.
Message edited by author 2006-12-22 13:45:46. |
|
|
|
12/22/2006 03:37:36 PM · #46 |
| What people fail to reqalize is human existence on the earth may not be forever. The earth as we know it is in constent change. Changes that mostly are out of our control. Weatherman only make a guess to as how the climate is going to be. Don't believe me, ever left your umbrella at home when they reported sunny skys and got rained on? Well all being said it is good to do your part in keeping the earth a cleaner place to live. Just stop the Hype. |
|
|
|
12/22/2006 06:13:29 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Because otherwise, I'd find this very suspect. Their claim is that there is 20 lbs of CO2 per gallon of gas. Well, shiver me timbers, we've found a way to void the three laws of thermodynamics.
However, the avg weight of a gallon of gasoline is approx. 6lbs. So this site is informing people that from 6lbs of total material we result in 20lbs of CO2. Even if we had a solid block of Carbon atoms and added twice that number of Oxygen atoms in order to create CO2 we'd still only end up at 18lbs. And this would assume a 100% conversion and that our hydrocarbon based gasoline molecules were 100% carbon. Which they are not. |
Sorry, but on this one you are wrong. In a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline ( 6 lbs, or 2,721.55 grams ) there are 2,421 grams of carbon ( according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ). 99% of that is turned into Carbon Dioxide during combustion. The atomic weight of carbon is 12, that of oxygen is 16 - hence the atomic weight of CO2 is 44 ( 12 + (16 * 2 )). So the weight of CO2 produced by a gallon of gasoline is 2,421 * .99 * ( 44 / 12 ), or 8,788.23 grams. That makes it 8.788 Kilograms or 19.37 pounds.
Namely, the "extra" weight comes from atmospheric oxygen. Only 27% of the weight of the CO2 ( 12/44ths ) comes from the gasoline itself. |
|
|
|
12/23/2006 09:30:27 AM · #48 |
So each molecule of CO2 weighs 44 grams (0.097 lbs)? I wish I knew that in HS and college when I was wrestling...I would of just hyperoxygenated to blow off that CO2 of 44 grams per molecule and go with the 32 grams per molecule of O2. How many millions of those molecules are in my lungs at one time?
|
|
|
|
12/23/2006 11:42:53 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
So each molecule of CO2 weighs 44 grams (0.097 lbs)? |
Hardly. 44 is the ATOMIC weight of CO2, not the weight in grams. Doing the math means that in any 44 units ( whether grams, kilos, pounds, tons, etc. ) of CO2, 12 of those units would be carbon and 32 would be oxygen.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2006 09:59:18 PM · #50 |
| What does a fart count as? And if farts count as CO2 do we ban bean eating? |
|
