Yet more Politics using scare tactics for Global Warming

[methos]

There you go. One volcano in 1883 lowered the temperature of the earth 1.2 deg.

 

I don't understand your point here - that the earth is fragile? If it is fragile, shouldn't we treat it as such?

 

The whole CO2 and Kyoto thing is politically driven.

 

In Canada?

 

In the U.S. environmentalism is the last thing on the agenda in the Bush Administration.

 

 

[methos]

Additonally, some of you may recall my above post about the ice caps on Mars melting. My conclusion is that it can only be attributed to increased solar output, which naturally would heat up things here on old mother earth right?

 

Well guess what.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...7/18/wsun18.xml

 

the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

 

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.

 

I guess I am having a hard time following the logic here. So, the sun is emitting more light, correct?. Does that mean we shouldn't worry about greenhouse gases trapping even more heat?

[Bluecon]

I don't understand your point here - that the earth is fragile? If it is fragile, shouldn't we treat it as such?

In Canada?

 

In the U.S. environmentalism is the last thing on the agenda in the Bush Administration.

The point is, the earth is not fragile. Despite the increase of 1.2deg C in a short time frame, the earth quickly recovered.

 

The USA has a much better record on reducing greenhouse gasses than Canada. The Liberal government signed the Kyoto agreement and then did nothing to enforce it. The Liberals are out of power but are talking of enforcing Kyoto if they are voted back in. They plan on giving billions to Russia and other countries that ducked Kyoto due to the back dating of the treaty to 1990. If you give countries such as Russia billions of dollars there is no need to reduce pollution at home. Like I said it is Kyoto is a socialist plan to move money from the wealthy countries to the less wealthy.

[Bluecon]

I guess I am having a hard time following the logic here. So, the sun is emitting more light, correct?. Does that mean we shouldn't worry about greenhouse gases trapping even more heat?

I will simplify it for you. If the Sun releases more energy at the Earth the Earth will warm. We are seeing the same effect on Mars at the same time as Earth due to the increased energy released by the Sun.

 

And how does Al Gore come up with the baloney of the Earths ocean rising huge amounts? Less than 2% of the Earths water is trapped in the ice caps and glaciers.

 

And the last Global warming period was very good for the Vikings and Europe in general.

You want to see a real problem look out for ice ages.

[kyle]

Richard can you please move this topic out of this forum.....these are the kind of topics that almost destroyed this board 8 months ago.

 

No one is going to change their mind about this crap. It is hard enough for some of us to convince people on this board that ford can do better....and car opinions mean crap compared to religion and politics.

[methos]

I will simplify it for you. If the Sun releases more energy at the Earth the Earth will warm. We are seeing the same effect on Mars at the same time as Earth due to the increased energy released by the Sun.

I dont see how that simplifies the logic or makes it sound. My point is that even if the root cause is the sun via more heat being emitted, wouldn't it be more prudent to lower heat trapping gases?

 

And how does Al Gore come up with the baloney of the Earths ocean rising huge amounts? Less than 2% of the Earths water is trapped in the ice caps and glaciers.

 

Ok, lets go with the 2%, since 70% of the earth is covered by water isn't 2% enough to do a lot of damage?

[methos]

The point is, the earth is not fragile. Despite the increase of 1.2deg C in a short time frame, the earth quickly recovered.

 

 

It was a single event. The atmosphere had time to recover. In global warming, it is likely a phenomena that is ongoing and will get progressively worse, and there is no time to recover. Can you see the difference?

 

This post ends it for me on this subject.

Edited January 15, 2007 by methos

[Bluecon]

I dont see how that simplifies the logic or makes it sound. My point is that even if the root cause is the sun via more heat being emitted, wouldn't it be more prudent to lower heat trapping gases?

 

It is similar to me being in my house and turning up the thermostat. The gas furnace comes on and it starts to become to warm. I would then stop breathing to solve the problem. Actually my stopping breathing would have a greater affect than the CO2 from all the cars in the USA.

 

Ok, lets go with the 2%, since 70% of the earth is covered by water isn't 2% enough to do a lot of damage?

The last episode of global warming like this was a great benefit to Europe. The LIA (Little Ice Age) was the problem. During the last period of global warming there was no great increase in the level of the oceans.

[Bluecon]

It was a single event. The atmosphere had time to recover. In global warming, it is likely a phenomena that is ongoing and will get progressively worse, and there is no time to recover. Can you see the difference?

 

This post ends it for me on this subject.

These events have happened over and over again thru history. You are brainwashed into thinking that the temperature of 1981 or some chosen year is the normal one for earth. The temperature and the weather of the Earth is extremely variable. If you wanted to stop global warming do like Krakatoa and put dust in the atmospere.

[bri719]

PS: besides being a lousy fuel which among other things you can't run through a pipeline, ethanol, one of the environmental-fruitcake hopes to replace oil, is starving Mexican children, now that it's massive impact on the corn market is spreading to impact things like food; tortillas. Way to go lefties/Californians/Euros.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2544525,00.html

 

 

 

hey now, I can honestly profess I had nothing to do with that and we're not even consuming Ethanol in CA (no distribution = virtually no E85 cars)

[Bluecon]

Biobutanol the new alcohol. Can be run thru the pipeline.

 

http://www2.dupont.com/Biofuels/en_US/index.html

[marc-o]

Abosolutely, I'd feel the same way.

 

http://www.stevenspublishing.com/Stevens/E...a7?OpenDocument

 

Which states specifically:

It was noted in the natural events book that one of the major volcanic eruptions, Mt. Vesuvius or Mt. Krakatoa produced more carbon dioxide than humankind has produced since our existence on the planet.

 

I'm sure I could find more if you like but I thought this would satisfy your scientiffic curiousity.

 

Actually this is the whole quote, hardly a reliable source:

 

"I read a book several years ago about natural pollution events such as volcanic eruptions, dust storms and fires storms like those experienced this past summer in the United States and the potential impacts of these events on Earth's climate. I also read the famous study done in the early 1980s co-authored by the late Dr. Carl Sagan regarding nuclear winter and its effects on global climate. It was noted in the natural events book that one of the major volcanic eruptions, Mt. Vesuvius or Mt. Krakatoa produced more carbon dioxide than humankind has produced since our existence on the planet"

 

This is a letter to the editor, not an article yet alone scientific fact.

 

A quick check on Wikipedia yields these results:

"Gas emissions from volcanoes are a natural contributor to acid rain.Volcanic activity releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year. Volcanic eruptions may inject aerosols into the Earth's atmosphere. Large injections may cause visual effects such as unusually colorful sunsets and affect global climate mainly by cooling it. Volcanic eruptions also provide the benefit of adding nutrients to soil through the weathering process of volcanic rocks. These fertile soils assist the growth of plants and various crops. Volcanic eruptions can also create new islands, as the magma dries on the water."

Wikipedia - Volcanic Eruption

 

 

Comparatively,

"Carbon dioxide emissions in the United States and its Territories were 6,008.6 million metric tons (MMT) in 2005"

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html

*These are government stats

 

Regardless, volcanoes are still spewing lava, so every human emissions are in addition to natural emissions which will occur regardless (and have to be absorbed somehow as well).

[marc-o]

There you go. One volcano in 1883 lowered the temperature of the earth 1.2 deg.

Northern Michigan had snow on the ground thru the whole summer. Yet mankind and the earth survived.

The CO2 from cars in the USA is miniscule (way less than 1%) as a source of greenhouse gas in the world.

The whole CO2 and Kyoto thing is politically driven.

 

"Global Climate

In the year following the eruption, average global temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 degrees Celsius. Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888[citation needed]. The eruption injected an unusually large amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas high into the stratosphere that was subsequently transported by high-level winds all over the planet. This led to a global increase in sulfuric acid (H2SO4) concentration in high-level cirrus cloud. The resulting increase in cloud reflectivity (or albedo) would reflect more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cool the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation [4]."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa

 

Except that temperature was lowered because less sunlight reached the ground (and plants) due to particulate (soot, ash, etc) clouds that eventually settle putting an end to the effect. If temperature is raised due to excess CO2, the only way to change that is by reducing the CO2, of which the only way we know that won't use more energy (and produce more CO2) is through plants metabolizing it.

 

Besides, what happens if you compound human emissions with another enormous volcanic eruption? No one knows, things might cancel eachother out, or they might be far worse.

[BlackHorse]

Oh my mistake Marc-o, I didn't realize we were playing the old "Your evidence that I asked for doesn't jive with my agenda so I have to say that it's not credible."

 

Actually your response is exactly what I suspected would come about so I wasn't the least bit surprised.

 

Kyle is right, this thread should be done away with. Everyone has their set of experts they choose to believe. None of us is really qualified to truly have an informed opinion on the topic but rather just post the informed opinions of others. None of us is going to change our minds based on what the other person says. It's just an excuse to have a fight. I'm not here to fight or fit into anyone's agenda so I'm through with this one.

[mustang_sallad]

And some people are very gullible and will accept whatever the government preaches to them. I suggest you read 1984 by George Orwell and Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. Remember Stalin and the "Useful Idiots", change isn't necessarily better.

 

That's a funny thing to bring up, cause last i checked, the governments of my country and the big one down south responsible for a quarter of all CO2 emissions (don't worry, i know Canada's worse per capita) want fuck all to do with CO2 regulations. Its taken a lot of lobbying by concerned citizens and scientists to convince the people in power that this is something politicians should at least pretend they care about if they want to get elected.

 

This forum seems to be divided into two sides on this topic. Yes we need to change things, or no, we don't need to change things. You argue for the side that sees more money into the pockets of the very people who promote that side of the debate. The other side puts more money into who's pockets? The wealthy lithium-ion battery producers, or the photovoltaic tycoons who somehow have more money than the likes of ExxonMobil and have managed to bribe the vast majority of the world's climate scientists? Or Al Gore, who's movie's profits are helping him establish an educational campaign that will surely make him the world's most powerful... principle?

 

A quick note about the role of transporation and global warming. This is from the executive summary of a report done by the EPA, published last march:

 

Report Background

Although transportation is a vital part of the economy and is essential for everyday activities, it is also a significant source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In 2003, the transportation sector accounted for about 27 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions, up from 24.8 percent in 1990. Transportation GHG emissions increased by a larger amount than any other economic sector(1) over this period, growing from 1509.3 teragram (Tg) CO2 Eq. in 1990 to 1,866.7 Tg CO2 Eq. in 2003, an increase of 24 percent(2). GHGs from all other sectors increased by a total of 9.5 percent over the same timeframe. Looking forward, transportation GHGs are forecast to continue increasing rapidly, reflecting the anticipated impact of factors such as economic growth, increased movement of freight by trucks and aircraft, and continued growth in personal travel. According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), transportation energy use is expected to increase 48 percent between 2003 and 2025, despite modest improvements in the efficiency of vehicle engines. This projected rise in energy consumption closely mirrors the expected growth in transportation GHG emissions(3). [a teragram is equal to 1 million metric tons]

 

And you're right, I ain't no rocket scientist. I'm a mechanical engineering student who's gonna wake up in the morning, go to school, and continue building a plug-in, series-hybrid electric vehicle. I take great pleasure in knowing that the good i do for the planet will make up for more than a handful of reluctant people like yourself.

[mustang_sallad]

sorry, here's the link to the entire report. Its actually a pretty good read:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420r06003.pdf

 

Here's a good quote, on the topic of the "miniscule" role american cars play on GHG emissions:

 

Although the United States accounts for approximately 5 percent of the world’s population, it

produces an estimated 21 percent14 of the world’s GHG emissions, amounting to 6,900 Tg CO2

Eq. in 2003.15 Transportation sources were responsible for about 27 percent of total U.S. GHG

emissions in 2003 (1,866.7 Tg CO2 Eq.).16 Non-transportation mobile sources, such as equipment

used for construction and agriculture, accounted for an additional 2.1 percent of the total U.S.

GHG emissions (144.8 Tg CO2 Eq.). These estimates are primarily representative of “tailpipe”

GHGs that result from the use of energy to power vehicles.17 They do not include “lifecycle”

emissions from processes such as the extraction of crude oil and manufacture of vehicles.

(Lifecycle issues are discussed in Chapter 10.)

 

 

Later on we see that transportation GHG emissions in the US can be broken down as 62% light-duty vehicles, 19% heavy duty vehicles, and 9% aircraft.

[Bluecon]

Later on we see that transportation GHG emissions in the US can be broken down as 62% light-duty vehicles, 19% heavy duty vehicles, and 9% aircraft.

90% of greenhouse gas emmissions are from vehicles and aircraft? What about people, cows, volcanoes, etc., etc. etc.

And don't forget water vapour is the number 1 source of greenhouse gas.

You can't see past your nose Chicken Little. The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

[mustang_sallad]

90% of greenhouse gas emmissions are from vehicles and aircraft? What about people, cows, volcanoes, etc., etc. etc.

And don't forget water vapour is the number 1 source of greenhouse gas.

You can't see past your nose Chicken Little. The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

 

 

Maybe you shouldn't read so fast.

[LSFan00]

sorry, here's the link to the entire report. Its actually a pretty good read:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420r06003.pdf

 

Here's a good quote, on the topic of the "miniscule" role american cars play on GHG emissions:

 

Although the United States accounts for approximately 5 percent of the world’s population, it

produces an estimated 21 percent14 of the world’s GHG emissions, amounting to 6,900 Tg CO2

Eq. in 2003.15 Transportation sources were responsible for about 27 percent of total U.S. GHG

emissions in 2003 (1,866.7 Tg CO2 Eq.).16 Non-transportation mobile sources, such as equipment

used for construction and agriculture, accounted for an additional 2.1 percent of the total U.S.

GHG emissions (144.8 Tg CO2 Eq.). These estimates are primarily representative of “tailpipe”

GHGs that result from the use of energy to power vehicles.17 They do not include “lifecycle”

emissions from processes such as the extraction of crude oil and manufacture of vehicles.

(Lifecycle issues are discussed in Chapter 10.)

Later on we see that transportation GHG emissions in the US can be broken down as 62% light-duty vehicles, 19% heavy duty vehicles, and 9% aircraft.

 

So water vapor is the problem; kill the hydrogen cars and fuel cells!

 

Step 2, in my wedge reduction plan will be to drain the oceans. They are responsible for a lot of water vapor according to my calculations.

[mustang_sallad]

90% of greenhouse gas emmissions are from vehicles and aircraft? What about people, cows, volcanoes, etc., etc. etc.

And don't forget water vapour is the number 1 source of greenhouse gas.

You can't see past your nose Chicken Little. The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

 

And about the water vapour issue, you obviously didn't bother to read the excellent article i linked, written by Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

 

Don't bother reading, I'm sure you know a lot more about the topic than this guy.

 

I'm not at all a fan of the hydrogen economy idea, either, by the way, and the water vapour problem is just one of the issues that worries me, unless they found a way to use the waste heat at the tail pipe and condense the vapour to liquid water.

[ebritt]

yo! the idea that we're not sure about the Global Warming and the role humans play in this is bullshit! There is VAST concensus in the scientific community that Global Warming is happening right now and that human activity is largely to blame for the effects we're seeing. There is absolutely NO DOUBT amongst scientists that the amount of oil we burn is affecting the climate (is it really that hard to believe? The atmosphere is only so big, how much oil can we burn before we start to notice an effect?).

That is a lie dude. The "scientists" proclaiming global warming as fact are in the minority. They are very very few, but they are very loud. You bought the lie now you look stupid.

[ebritt]

The point is, the earth is not fragile. Despite the increase of 1.2deg C in a short time frame, the earth quickly recovered.

 

The USA has a much better record on reducing greenhouse gasses than Canada. The Liberal government signed the Kyoto agreement and then did nothing to enforce it. The Liberals are out of power but are talking of enforcing Kyoto if they are voted back in. They plan on giving billions to Russia and other countries that ducked Kyoto due to the back dating of the treaty to 1990. If you give countries such as Russia billions of dollars there is no need to reduce pollution at home. Like I said it is Kyoto is a socialist plan to move money from the wealthy countries to the less wealthy.

The Kyoto Treaty is falling apart at the seams. Why? Because they didn't get our money, wich is all they wanted in he first place.

[Bluecon]

And about the water vapour issue, you obviously didn't bother to read the excellent article i linked, written by Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

 

Don't bother reading, I'm sure you know a lot more about the topic than this guy.

 

I'm not at all a fan of the hydrogen economy idea, either, by the way, and the water vapour problem is just one of the issues that worries me, unless they found a way to use the waste heat at the tail pipe and condense the vapour to liquid water.

You will probably learn this in school, but water evaporates.

The only solution is to drain all the oceans and lakes.

[Bluecon]

The Kyoto Treaty is falling apart at the seams. Why? Because they didn't get our money, wich is all they wanted in he first place.

That is exactly what Kyoto is about. It is a political treaty meant to remove money from the USA and redistribute it.

[NJSteve3]

That is exactly what Kyoto is about. It is a political treaty meant to remove money from the USA and redistribute it.

Bluecon and ebritt nailed this one - Kyoto was a shakedown, pure and simple, and congress - masters of shaking down their own constituents - were having none of it. Too bad they don't apply the same critical thinking to UN participation.