Does anyone else believe that global warming is nothing more than a conspiracy blown out of proportion?

Sure I agree that we do our harm to our environment... don't get me wrong. But I do not believe that global warming is truly portrayed. I feel as though our world is a world based on perpetual physics and because of which the world balances itself on its own.

In comparison I feel it is a perfect balance of torque and horsepower. When mother earth needs to pull herself to normal conditions she decreases the horsepower and finds that low end torque to get to balance. Once the balance is met however, she increases the horsepower to keep things up.

I'd really like to see how others look at this "problem".

I believe that nature will continue to cycle. The phenomenon itself doesn't concern me.

The downside is the weather precipitated by warm wet period could beat the hell out of some parts of the country/world. Look at lousiana, if they and other coastal states continue to be hit by hurricanes, It may just be abandoned.

Ice storms like the one we had here this year came just short of being a real problem. My car had 3/4" of ice on it and many trees were lost. We only had about 4 days of ice but it shut the city down.Not categorically global warming but a big enough deviation from normal to be worth considering. Canada has had Ice storms which took down the major power lines and created a pretty serious emergency with no power in winter. In and of themselves BFD.

The doomsday prediction is that weather becomes so unstable that superstorms damage exceed our ability to repair them. If you magnify what happened in LA by a factor of 5 or 10, using the U.S. as an example then I'd say you have a major problem.

Not to mention that small scale changes upset farming, ocean flora and fauna. Food shortages etc. I'm not sure how many metrosexuals ; ) and the elderly would fair under a more primitive environment .

Consider how much movement of goods occur by sea and highway. More frequent and severe storms would definitely complicate what we take for granted.

I'm not overly concerned. I may have beachfront property after the big melt. ; ) But seriously it could be quite bad. Then again, mount helens erupts cools off things for a while then global temps drop a few degrees. We have become more aware which gives us more to be worried about. Current scientific studies show that we have been in an unusually stable period.

Worth considering but who knows for sure.

I will be honest I am very spiritual in belief therefore I agree with you. To the contrary I see that people die and advancements are destroyed but I feel that death and destruction are necessary to the large scheme of things. It is a shame that these casualties occur, but one must realize that the Earth must balance herself as priority for the future of existance. The #1 cause of "GreenHouse gases" are displaced by her and her alone.

Has anyone else heard it takes $1.25 worth of gas to make a $1 worth of gasoline? I'm from a farming family and live on one... yet I am not big on BIO or ethanol anything. :)

How about the electric generator that runs off magnets and will produce a surplus of electricity?

So many things out there so much for us to decide. I just think we need to focus on our education before we even attempt to fix problems. If we were to properly educate the young we would be able to fix our future problem. See the forum on degrading of education for more.

Tyler

Yep,

With you 100%. Spiritual, Darwinian. Lean towards darwinian realities. Really I'm more concerned with Quality of Life, we have things pretty good for the most globally, it could always be better though.

Y2K was a crazy time in the market. I remember some ones comment on issues like global warming, "sit back and enjoy the ride." Not quite a 100% on that.

i don t know much about global warming but i'd like to know how many trees have been cut to cover the global warming stories in the news papers
lately 1/2 the paper is about climate change and how we need more trees and less vehicles

i am absolutely fed up with hearing about all they're new theories

Not to be a hater on any politician... but ummm..... Here's another look at it...... Methane gases released from bull ^%(^ (livestock).... makes up a large percentage according to a lot of studies...Now if we took all of Al Gore's bull %^(% from trying to make himself look good by standing up to BIG BAD global warming... then the Bahamas would be having a blizzard next weekend.

Words of wisdom.... Join the anarachist republican property.
Whats that you may ask... People who beleive in the principals our forefathers set for us. Not this mumbo jumbo crap we are set and who are willing to stick up for what they beleive... not some pork bellied Washington junk head.(nuts)

I just don't read the newspaper or watch local news (much). SSDD. Sensationalism is annoying.

"There must be some way out of here," said the joker to the thief,
"There's too much confusion, I can't get no relief.
Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth,
None of them along the line know what any of it is worth."

"No reason to get excited," the thief, he kindly spoke,
"There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke.
But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate,
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late."

All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too.

Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl,
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl.
http://www.bobdylan.com/images/dotclear.gif

Copyright © 1968; renewed 1996 Dwarf Music

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

http://www.reasontorock.com/tracks/watchtower.html

http://www.gotquestions.org/four-horsemen-apocalypse.html

http://www.bobdylan.com/images/columbia/colround_lgt.gif (http://www.columbiarecords.com/)

Just wandering, did anyone see the program on the Discovery Channel about GW, about two nights ago. It seems they have seen enough proof of GW that they felt the need to act on it in a big way. It went on to inform that the US & Brit Gov have been putting Aluminum Oxide in jet fuel for the purpose of blocking/reflecting the suns rays to reduce GW. It is suppost to float in the upper Atmisphere and work like tiny little mirrors to reflect the sun away. They found alot of proof that they was doing this. The GOV even denied the testing of the fuel used for GOV jets.


The claim that you can see the effect on some jets. It seems that the smoke trail takes much longer to dissapate from site.


I dont really know if we are doing anything to cause GW, I would think that we are. But I also wander just how much damage could come from something like this. Could it be they even caused the bad winters that the mid west has been through by putting this element into the air.

I didnt get to see the whole show, but I will be watching to catch the next time they air it , so I can see in more detail what they was talking about.


Jess

Hmmm...very interesting. Did anyone remember when the X's in the sky from jets were believed to be population control.....toxic chemicals used to aid in the need for pharmaceuticals....... not to mention imunitations which are being shown may cause ADHD as well as BIPolars... etc.... O wait.... my bipolar condition occured right after immunizations.

As far as I am concerned.... What goes up ...must go down. Aluminum oxide..... how safe can that be inhaling. Alzheimer's patients seem to show a larger content of aluminum in their bodies for example. Hmmm.... coincidence.....aluminum is a wonderful material... but what about metal toxicity and such.

I'm going to have to watch that... if you could would you mind posting the next time up if you see it advertised.
Thanks.

No, I think it is a diversion from real issues.

Look at the mentality and character traits of those pushing the dogma.

Left leaning, fear mongering demagogs totally opposed to protecting there own from radical sects they can relate to. Yet, issues like abortion are in direct conflict with saving the animals. Anti-war is in direct conflict with saving the lives, and freedom from oppressive governments. Gay marriage is in direct conflict with with most religons, sanctified by a God they deny and ignore.

It appears to be any cause in direct opposition to those they disagree with. There is no middle ground. They want total control, while having no self control.

DC

Brilliant philosophy. Its an amazing look at this subject. It all makes sense based on human nature. By nature mankind refuses to accept their mistakes. By blaming their problems on those who lived before them, as well as a problem as near to impossible to control because it is of nature mankind has a scapegoat to all it can not control.

A machinist's philosophy... a beautiful thing of both science and emotion.

Only good thing about dogma is it is expedient, simple.

The danger of any highly focused view is it assumes itself as the most important. Global Warming as in "the trend is towards getting warmer can be quantified." Predicting when and what will happen next is a multivariate model from hell.

Polarized views get attention. The real danger is in the interpretation or lack thereof. As for what is right or wrong, that is a construct. Religion, philosophy, laws are basically ways of making moral dilemmas simpler although sometimes they make things more complicated :D

I used to wonder why third parties exist. For the most part they have very little chance for success election wise. However, they typically cause the standard party platforms to consider the impact of the lost third party votes and pick up a less radical compromise of that party. So in an effect third parties can lose but really win.

Sometimes we need to see something over and over again to let our minds either consciously or subconsciously consider it. Each individual theory within itself has limited value. The best theories within context are what matter.

Sometimes a dialectic of two opposing viewpoints arrive at grey compromise from two divergent views.


Just the failure of atlantic and oceanic conveyor is enough to cause major problems. We often think that weather effects the ocean temps when to a large degree the oceans redistribute extremes of temperature. If the conveyor fails then atmospheric forces, storms etc will handle these divergent temps more violently.


Splitting hairs here but that's my view.

So I have forgotten the question. Where can I find this challenge and how it is spelled out.


Regards.

Is this contest really that safe. Should we even venture to fight a natural act? Or just let nature fix herself.

Are we going to be the mechanic who trying to fix the car fries everything else and the thing runs worse than when it was brought it?

Just a look. C'mon spreading aluminum oxide in the sky...... Can't be smart!!!!!

That is generally how I feel. Win the money by proving you will do more harm than good in such a direct method. More relevant though it is classic overreaching. Man's reach exceeding his grasp.

If it was Mars not much harm could be done. Then again we don't think would could make Mars habitable in 5 yrs. http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/mars/background/terra2.html

Pretty much ridiculous, I'd like to see it in writing.

Besides I would probably go with nitrous oxide. It would make the planes fly faster and if anything went wrong we'd be too busy laughing our asses off.

What is that DEVO song. I say whippit, whippit good. When a problem comes along you must whippit. It's not to late.

Zumba, chime in as necessary.

Global warming is a myth. Those who 'buy in' to the myth are sheeple.

....It went on to inform that the US & Brit Gov have been putting Aluminum Oxide in jet fuel for the purpose of blocking/reflecting the suns rays to reduce GW.......

Aluminum oxide, also know as Alumina or Corundum is an abrasive used in grinding wheels and emery cloth. Do you really believe that it could be added to jet fuel?

Good point Geof...

I'm not an expert in the field, but a jet engine does burn fuel in a different method than the conventional internal combustion engines we use for transportation. Perhaps the intense heat and different burning method allows the oxide to become liquefied and simply pass through as vapor which upon cooling returns to its original form.

Anyone in here understand a jet engine's combustion technique to the extent of knowing whether or not the use of aluminum oxide within the fuel would create adverse effects? This is an interesting concept on both the idea of its use as well as how it would be possible. We need the Mythbusters LOL.

Here are a couple of links:

http://travel.howstuffworks.com/turbine.htm

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blhowajetengineworks.htm

Jet engines burn fuel by spraying it out of small nozzles into a combustion chamber that has compressed air blown into by the compressor turbine at the intake of the engine. The hot combustion gases pass out of the combustion chamber and drive exhaust turbines. The exhaust turbines are connected to the compressor turbines and on modern engines also to a ducted fan that bypasses air around the combustion chamber and then recombines it with the exhaust flow coming out of the exhaust turbine. The thrust from the engine comes both from the hot exhaust gases that have passed through the exhaust turbines and from the bypass air from the ducted fan.

Jet engines do not get hot enough to vaporize aluminum oxide; it would pass through as a solid. Or more likely it would not pass through, it would clog filters, damage fuel pumps, clog valves and if by some strange chance it actually made it through to the fuel nozzles at the combustion chambers it would subject the blades on the exhaust turbine to a very high temperature abrasive grit blasting.

In short any claim that aluminum oxide could be spread into the atmosphere by mixing it with jet fuel is simply nonsense.

I have a presentation that was given to various officials by a climate scientist who works in the field of clouds debunking the whole "chemo-contrails" conspiracy theory. I'll try to remember to post it on Mondee when I get back to work... :)

I hope no one ever tells the russian and chinese military that adding aluminum oxide to jet fuel enhances thrust by a measured 18% in jet engines, while reducing heat and thereby increasing MTBF on turbine blades as much as 36%.

Also, I hope no one tells North Korea that adding water to the jet fuel along with attaching magnets to the fuel lines can enhance performance even more!!!....and good gawd, I hope they don't find out about the US military secret of adding moth balls!!

I have a presentation that was given to various officials by a climate scientist who works in the field of clouds debunking the whole "chemo-contrails" conspiracy theory. I'll try to remember to post it on Mondee when I get back to work... :)....

You mean I should not believe this?: http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/

Incidentally I am not sure who is the most deluded, believers in chemtrail conspiracy or the ones who think they can debunk it and convince the believers that it is a bunch of nonsense.

I believe we have we have an impact on the earth itself. It does not necessarily have to be global warming. I believe our actions will cause extreme weather changes and what not. Sometimes it is blown out of proportion but it is an issue that cannot be ignored.

I believe we have we have an impact on the earth itself. It does not necessarily have to be global warming. I believe our actions will cause extreme weather changes and what not. Sometimes it is blown out of proportion but it is an issue that cannot be ignored.

Unless we unleash nuclear weapons or other such weapons in an all out war, I don't believe we humans can do much to destroy this earth.

I heard Al Gore turned on about 50,000,000 candle power lights at his mansion. The press said he did it late at night so he could actualy see the ozone getting smaller. Bono flew over on a whim to be with him and see it happen. The problem was he caused a brown out on the North Pole and Santa Clause had to shut the Northern Light off to keep the North Pole from melting. I swear I read this in the New York Tines. Ha Ha, Oh God I think I just broke a rib. Man this is fun.

I for one am fed up of hearing about global warming, the only thing affecting the earths weather is the sun. It drives the climate and gives life and energy to every process on earth. Does anybody other than our idiotic non scientific politicians, believe that the .033% of CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming. What man does to the earth is minute to what nature does. But I must agree that we need to save our resources of fuel and by becoming more efficient it might last a little longer. We all tend to think of the earth as a small place because we can travel fast and see pictures from the other side of the planet, in fact the earth is a massive place and the weather is beyond our control.

I have a presentation that was given to various officials by a climate scientist who works in the field of clouds debunking the whole "chemo-contrails" conspiracy theory. I'll try to remember to post it on Mondee when I get back to work... :)

I hope no one ever tells the russian and chinese military that adding aluminum oxide to jet fuel enhances thrust by a measured 18% in jet engines, while reducing heat and thereby increasing MTBF on turbine blades as much as 36%.

Also, I hope no one tells North Korea that adding water to the jet fuel along with attaching magnets to the fuel lines can enhance performance even more!!!....and good gawd, I hope they don't find out about the US military secret of adding moth balls!!

I must know where you get this information...FAS perhaps?

I read that one Boeing 767 on a 2000 mile trip produces enough carbon dioxide
that one mature tree will take 76 YEARS to convert back to oxygen.
We are cutting our mature trees, flying more. Do the math!
I firmly believe that Nature demands a balance, when man unbalances, Nature kicks back with a vengeance!
There is positive proof the polar ice is melting and the permafrost in Alaska is thawing. This is for real.

I read that ..........
....There is positive proof the polar ice is melting and the permafrost in Alaska is thawing. This is for real.

What? The climate is changing?? This is for real???

You've been listening to Richard Alley, haven't you?

...There is positive proof the polar ice is melting and the permafrost in Alaska is thawing. This is for real.

At this time of year?

The parts about the permafrost thawing was from National Geographic and the polar ice melting was from a series from the Weather Channel from a scientific post in the Arctic.
The 767 information came from a engineering magazine produced here on the Virginia Tech campus by the Engineering College. It came from the Aeronautical Engineering Department that does research in jet turbine efficiency.
Take a look at the satellite imagery of the past ten years of the polar ice cap and you can visually see for yourself.
I do not trust any single person's opinion as they are usually biased to their beliefs not real science.
I do weather research as a serious hobby and spend time with our Geology people that that teach meteorology and at the NWS office just off campus.
I do a lot of satellite imagery study as it is the only way I can get use of some of the tax money I give the government. I especially am in to hurricanes. Have not had one named after me, as yet! One was Fredrick, but my name is spelled Frederick.

On the flip side;

The Mount St Helens eruption produced more co2 emmissions in the first five days than have been calculated to have been produced in the entire Industrial revolution.

A 3/4 loaded 747 does about 52 mpg per passenger. Fully loaded it's as high as 100mpg depending upon configuration and range.

If you assume the average car occupancy is 2 (its not, its around 1.25) then the 747 is still more fuel efficient than 5/8ths of the vehicles in use today.

A gas turbine at altitude and temperature at constant speed is about 55-60% mechanically efficient. A prius is 37%, the average car engine is 20-30% mechanically efficient.

While the turbine exhaust is delivered at high altitude that some suggest is more damaging the exhaust product is actually CLEANER than the air in most western cities and contains less co2.

Why worry so much about co2? what happened to the crys of anguish about NO and NO2, SOx and others?

The average modern car in down town LA, say a pruis or ford focus, produces exhaust that is CLEANER than the air the engine takes in.

Before LA became LA the local indians avoided the area and called it the big smoke. The surrounding mountains held in the smog caused by naturally occuring fires in the area.

A modern diesel using non or low sulphur fuels is cleaner than a gas engine and has higher mechanical efficiency and cheaper to produce and run than a hybrid.

Audi won Le Mans with a diesel powered car. More power, less fuel used and if you beleive Audi at the cost of a 1/4 less Co2 and other gasses produced.

If you apply the carbon cost arguement to the cost of making, buying, running for 5 years and recycling a vehicle a hummer is HALF the cost of a prius.

The ideal solution is often said to be a plug in hybrid with a diesel. Plugins are slow to appear? Why? Because there's no means currently for the fuel cost from the grid to be taxed? Because the grid would have to be expanded in capacity to cope with the additional load? Whats the Co2 cost of centrally producing and distributing the extra power as opposed to local generation or direct use from - er - gas or diesel?

Personally I do not know whether Global Warming is happening or not, but Spring events are happening earlier, Winters are milder. Then there is the melting of glaciers and polar ice. It sure looks like it.

Something like over 90 % of scientists are convinced that global warming is happening.

Scientists tell us that:

CO2 in the atmosphere is at the highest for hundreds of thousands of years.

The warming measured both directly and indirectly seems to coincide with the CO2 liberated since the Industrial Revolution

It is known that the 'greenhouse effect' is real.

The precise severity of Global Warming is unknown.

The ranges of plant and animal species are changing due to the change in the climate.

The effects are predicted to differ locally.

Global Warming is so-called because it affects the whole world.


As far as I know, all the gain sayers that have 'proved' that climate change is just a myth have been debunked for using junk science. Example: sunspots

Personally, I'd rather play it safe and try not screw up the planet.

I will never fly again and I am [and will continue to] take additional steps reduce my greenhouse emissions.

Hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

I totally agree with totally_screwed!
__________________
Jaguar / Land Rover Remanufactured Parts Catalog by Black Dog Manufacturing (http://www.who-sells-it.com/cy/black-dog-manufacturing-642/jaguar-land-rover-remanufactured-parts-catalog-205.html) - Jaguar / Land Rover Remanufactured Parts Catalog by Black Dog Manufacturing

Does anyone else believe that global warming is nothing more than a conspiracy blown out of proportion?

Sure I agree that we do our harm to our environment... don't get me wrong. But I do not believe that global warming is truly portrayed. I feel as though our world is a world based on perpetual physics and because of which the world balances itself on its own.

In comparison I feel it is a perfect balance of torque and horsepower. When mother earth needs to pull herself to normal conditions she decreases the horsepower and finds that low end torque to get to balance. Once the balance is met however, she increases the horsepower to keep things up.

I'd really like to see how others look at this "problem".

being a physicist by training and knowing some climate specialists personally I would answer this questions this way.

The democrats have always taked their marching orders from the more left thiking environmental groups like greenpeace. Interestingly enough, the EPA was made a cabinet post and given it's biggest boost in stature and ploitical strength by..., you guest it..., Nixon and the republicans. Now that the political crap is out of the way.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the single most prestigious collection of scientists inthe world was asked recently to look into the global warming problem. Their conclusion is (a) the earth is getting warmer, (b) We are in the hot end of a natural warming cycle, and (c) there is an increase in global green house gas emissions. The problem is that the technology doesnot yet exist, nor are there any proposals that look resonable, to be able to seperate the amount of warming due to natural cycles and from the amount due to greenhouse gasses. Any one who tells you otherwise is either a liar or a fool or both.

The UN released a big study a few months ago showing that most of the warning was due to greenhouse gasses. They have since retracted most of the study as being wrong and biased.

The british released a study recently showing the single largest producer of greenhouse gasses in the world are... you guessed it... cows.

Another study showed that the largest producer of greenhouse gasses and smog in the LA basin was the hollywood industry. One of the groups most vocal about cutting greenhouse gasses. Their responce was "if you try to regulate us we will just move our studios and make movies somewhere else". What's good for the rest of us isn't acceptable to them I guess.

There was a study released recently by the Washington State Meterology group showing that most of global warming is due to greenhouse gasses. One member of the group, the VP, disagreed and published his rebutal. He was fired without explaination and is now suing.

The artctic ice caps are shrinking, yes. But the antarctic ice caps are growing... explaine that to me would you.

Greenpeace has a great vidoe out with some anemic looking polar bear saying he is dying due to global warming. there are over 100 species of polar bear, most are thriving. I was told that the species they have in the video is supposed to look like that and is perfectly healthy.

I summary, I think the only thing we can all agree on is (a) the planet is getting warmer, (b) there is crap in the air that doesn't belong there, and (c) we would all breath easier if there were less carp in the air.

As, for this post, the imortal Stan Lee used to say at the end of his comic books...

'Nuff said

Something like over 90 % of scientists are convinced that global warming is happening.

Scientists tell us that:


Yes, but they can't agree on the reasons.

Interestingly enough (something I left out of my last post), if you look back historically on some of the publications of the most vocal proponents of global warming, these are the same folks who were predicting a catastrophic mini-ice age about 40 years ago when the northern hemisphere was coolling down.

40 year cycle... cool then... warmer now... nope can't possibly be a connection there.

I personally love the quote "Scientists tell us that"... it's almost as good as "most scientists believe". Scientists only "tell us", or "believe" when they don't have the facts to back up their statements. If they did, then, scientists would show us or prove to us.

BTW, when it comes to this whole argument, "Scientists tell us that" is the correct phrase to use.

Does anyone else believe that global warming is nothing more than a conspiracy blown out of proportion?

Sure I agree that we do our harm to our environment... don't get me wrong. But I do not believe that global warming is truly portrayed. I feel as though our world is a world based on perpetual physics and because of which the world balances itself on its own.

In comparison I feel it is a perfect balance of torque and horsepower. When mother earth needs to pull herself to normal conditions she decreases the horsepower and finds that low end torque to get to balance. Once the balance is met however, she increases the horsepower to keep things up.

I'd really like to see how others look at this "problem".
I am no expert, but look at it this way. Imagine you cut down all the trees. What happen? Imagine, no trees and you still continue to drive your cars producing tons of fumes into the air.

Imagine again, you have no trees, lots of cars and the population on earth doubles itself in the next 50 years. You think the earth will recover itself from this catastrophe? I think any person with some background on physics will see this is a very dangerous situation.

Ok, say that all this is just a controversy blown out of proportion and the earth does cycle tru this global warming issue. Wouldn't anyone be worried if the worst of this cycle hasn't arrive yet. Maybe in our lifetime the worst comes along. What may the worst case scenario be? Say an ice age? Maybe a heat wave that sweep across the globe? Maybe non stop torrential down pour? Drought?

I think at this stage we are in denial. We just don't want to hear the worst case scenario. Isn't it better to do something about this issue than telling others that this is bogus and a waste of time.

Wouldn't you be glad one day scientists comes out with an environmentally friendly transports rather than today's cars pumping out gas. Wouldn't you be glad if our children can have a cleaner and safer world than one faced with natural disaster?

Scientists all over the world are agreeing that global warming is a threat. Who are we to argue with that? I am no scientist and I agree with them and unless we start doing something about it, I think we are going to end up in real sorry state. I agree based on one thing. There is nothing to gain for these scientist to reveal that global warming is a threat other than to save us from being affected by it. Why do you want to wait until its too late before acknowledging that it is a possibility that global warming will affect us all.

As the wise saying goes. Don't leave home without it or you might just need it. Be prepared rather than be sorry. We are spending so much money to send people to the moon. For what? For glory. What a load of bull. Why not look after our own home first?

The problem with some of us is that we think global warming issue isn't our problem. Its always someone else's problem. So we just brush it aside and leave it to someone else to solve it. Well, its time we all need to wake up.

Yes, but they can't agree on the reasons.

Isn't it more worrying when 90% of scientists agree its happening and not knowing what is the real cause? I don't care what causes global warming (not that we don't already know what is the cause) It could be a million cows producing tons and tons of methane and the whole world population farting at the same time. The fact that it is happening is worrying enough and we should do something about it.

It may not be happening in our lifetime. Probably a reason not to worry too much i guess. But aren't you concern about the world that our children or grand children may inherit? I am.

I for one am fed up of hearing about global warming, the only thing affecting the earths weather is the sun. It drives the climate and gives life and energy to every process on earth. Does anybody other than our idiotic non scientific politicians, believe that the .033% of CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming. What man does to the earth is minute to what nature does. But I must agree that we need to save our resources of fuel and by becoming more efficient it might last a little longer. We all tend to think of the earth as a small place because we can travel fast and see pictures from the other side of the planet, in fact the earth is a massive place and the weather is beyond our control.

I was reading an article on one of the websites I visit that concerns the cosmos. Sometime last year they announced that the sun was moving into a more active phase and probably had been for decades, prior to having placed the proper instruments into orbit to study it. I'd have to say that Stu_M3 has a pretty good point and the eco-nuts have their carts before their horses.

Al Gore as an envronmental expert is laughable. He comes from the same group of politicos that actually dismissed botonist, chemicist, Drs. etc from a gov't oversight hearing concerning the use of pesticides in apple orchards in favor of listening to an actress who was considered an expert on the subject because she played an orchard owner in a movie. This is why sensable people scoff at anything said by the eco-nuts. When they have hard evidence, that takes into account all outside contributing factors, and then say it is my fault for supporting the cattle industry at my grill, for having a fireplace to cozy up to in the winter, and driving the 40 miles to work and back instead of riding one of my horse, then and only then will I and the majority of people consider what they have to say.

Scott

....the most vocal proponents of global warming, these are the same folks who were predicting a catastrophic mini-ice age about 40 years ago when the northern hemisphere was coolling down...

The "same" people? That's stretching a bit isn't it. Most academics haven't reach a point of independent credibility in their field until their late twneties; most have been put out to pasture by their mid sixties. I doubt the same people, personally, where on either side of this contradiction.:D

On the flip side;
A 3/4 loaded 747 does about 52 mpg per passenger. Fully loaded it's as high as 100mpg depending upon configuration and range.

If you assume the average car occupancy is 2 (its not, its around 1.25) then the 747 is still more fuel efficient than 5/8ths of the vehicles in use today.

A gas turbine at altitude and temperature at constant speed is about 55-60% mechanically efficient. A prius is 37%, the average car engine is 20-30% mechanically efficient.

While the turbine exhaust is delivered at high altitude that some suggest is more damaging the exhaust product is actually CLEANER than the air in most western cities and contains less co2.

Why worry so much about co2? what happened to the crys of anguish about NO and NO2, SOx and others?

The average modern car in down town LA, say a pruis or ford focus, produces exhaust that is CLEANER than the air the engine takes in.

Before LA became LA the local indians avoided the area and called it the big smoke. The surrounding mountains held in the smog caused by naturally occuring fires in the area.

A modern diesel using non or low sulphur fuels is cleaner than a gas engine and has higher mechanical efficiency and cheaper to produce and run than a hybrid.

Audi won Le Mans with a diesel powered car. More power, less fuel used and if you beleive Audi at the cost of a 1/4 less Co2 and other gasses produced.

If you apply the carbon cost argument to the cost of making, buying, running for 5 years and recycling a vehicle a hummer is HALF the cost of a prius.

The ideal solution is often said to be a plug in hybrid with a diesel. Plugins are slow to appear? Why? Because there's no means currently for the fuel cost from the grid to be taxed? Because the grid would have to be expanded in capacity to cope with the additional load? Whats the Co2 cost of centrally producing and distributing the extra power as opposed to local generation or direct use from - er - gas or diesel?

It sounds impossible that any car's exhaust could be cleaner than the intake air! Although it all depends upon what cleaner actually means.

I suppose it really depends upon who supplied the statistics.

I heard somewhere that smoking cigarettes is supposed to be good for you. Or has that changed recently? [Good statistics, bad statistics?]

On the flip side;

The Mount St Helens eruption produced more co2 emmissions in the first five days than have been calculated to have been produced in the entire Industrial revolution.

A 3/4 loaded 747 does about 52 mpg per passenger. Fully loaded it's as high as 100mpg depending upon configuration and range.

If you assume the average car occupancy is 2 (its not, its around 1.25) then the 747 is still more fuel efficient than 5/8ths of the vehicles in use today.

A gas turbine at altitude and temperature at constant speed is about 55-60% mechanically efficient. A prius is 37%, the average car engine is 20-30% mechanically efficient.

While the turbine exhaust is delivered at high altitude that some suggest is more damaging the exhaust product is actually CLEANER than the air in most western cities and contains less co2.

Why worry so much about co2? what happened to the crys of anguish about NO and NO2, SOx and others?

The average modern car in down town LA, say a pruis or ford focus, produces exhaust that is CLEANER than the air the engine takes in.

Before LA became LA the local indians avoided the area and called it the big smoke. The surrounding mountains held in the smog caused by naturally occuring fires in the area.

A modern diesel using non or low sulphur fuels is cleaner than a gas engine and has higher mechanical efficiency and cheaper to produce and run than a hybrid.

Audi won Le Mans with a diesel powered car. More power, less fuel used and if you beleive Audi at the cost of a 1/4 less Co2 and other gasses produced.

If you apply the carbon cost arguement to the cost of making, buying, running for 5 years and recycling a vehicle a hummer is HALF the cost of a prius.

The ideal solution is often said to be a plug in hybrid with a diesel. Plugins are slow to appear? Why? Because there's no means currently for the fuel cost from the grid to be taxed? Because the grid would have to be expanded in capacity to cope with the additional load? Whats the Co2 cost of centrally producing and distributing the extra power as opposed to local generation or direct use from - er - gas or diesel?

Regarding the pollution for different vehicles, it is essential that the Dust to Dust cost to the environment or total pollution load of vehicle production, disposal and running throughout its life is considered.

So it is possible but extremely unlikely that a Hummer could produce less pollution than a Prius.

However, given the vast differences in the pollution levels of running the vehicles, and based upon the scientifically established conclusion that the majority of a vehicle's pollution arises through its use, I very strongly suspect that the Hummer would need to stay parked most of the time to beat the Prius.

It is inevitable that a Hummer weighing 6400 lbs versus the Prius at 2921 lbs will produce more CO2 - even if the Prius used a conventional petrol engine. That is why the Hummer returns ~ 13 mpg [H2 as low as 1 mpg if thrashed (Jeremy Clarkson on BBC's Top Gear, from the H2's own computer)] and a Prius currently 50 mpg or more, I've heard 85+ mpg mentioned, (yes I noticed that this different from the figures below).

Let's be realistic, people do not buy cars to leave in the garage, they buy them to drive!

I must admit that when I read the nice green Hummer versus nasty & dirty Prius report, I smelled a rat [or suspected an April first publishing spoof, and I came across mentions of this report when I was looking for the Hummer statistics.

In-fact this report has been widely debunked and CNW seem not to have done their homework!

CNW Marketing Research Inc. – Study on Hybrid Efficiency
Excerpt [edited] below from http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/10/05/oh-so-a-hummer-is-not-greener-a-prius/
What is clear, however, is that the conclusions appear to be very different from the results of several other rigorous, scientifically-reviewed studies of the lifecycle impact of vehicles (e.g. Argonne National Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).

* Example 1: These studies conclude that (80-85%) of the total lifetime energy use of a vehicle comes from the driving stage, with the remainder coming from the remaining stages of a vehicle life, whereas the CNW study shows these percentages to be reversed.
* Example 2: Two Toyota models mentioned in the report, are engineered with the same processes, built on the same assembly line, transported and shipped together, distributed through the same dealer network, have the same engines and transmissions, are about the same weight (within 50 lbs.), and have very similar fuel consumption ratings (one just over 35 mpg combined, the other just below 35), yet the CNW study shows the lifetime energy use of these vehicles to be very different (53 per cent).
* Example 3: The CNW study states that hybrids require more lifetime energy than even large SUVs. Toyota's internal analysis does conclude that there is more energy required in the materials production stage for a hybrid, but that this is overwhelmingly made up for in the driving stage (the 80-85% stage), causing the hybrid to have a significantly lower lifetime energy use.

There are also basic factual errors in the report, for example CNW claim that the hybrid batteries are not recycled. - Not True

On the flip side;

The Mount St Helens eruption produced more co2 emissions in the first five days than have been calculated to have been produced in the entire Industrial revolution.



So! This is a natural event over which we have no influence, and it would have happened whether or not Homo sapiens [was sapiens a Linnean joke?] was polluting the atmosphere.

Is this an excuse? Now that Mother Nature has had her turn, is it's Mankind's turn to cause additional damage?

It is highly likely that other natural events will occur that will affect the biosphere. We currently have no influence over them. Based upon mankind's abilities so far, I suspect that if & when erupting volcanoes and earthquakes become controllable, for the Earth, it will presage evil days to come.

What we can do is to avoid wrecking everything in our supreme collective arrogance and sheer stupidity and stop assuming that Mother Nature can always be relied-upon to empty the trash can.

So! This is a natural event over which we have no influence, and it would have happened whether or not Homo sapiens [was sapiens a Linnean joke?] was polluting the atmosphere.

Is this an excuse? Now that Mother Nature has had her turn, is it's Mankind's turn to cause additional damage?

So!, Climate change has also been proven to be a natural event. It has also happened despite no human influence. Is this an excuse to clear some peoples concience by regulating any emission that these activists would like control of, and theorize may contribute, even though it is .05% of all CO2 in the environment?

If it cannot be proven that man HAS caused the climate to change. I find it even more absurd to push theory that we could ever fix the climate in any imagination of effect, by only altering a portion of the .05% we do emit.

It is highly likely that other natural events will occur that will affect the biosphere. We currently have no influence over them. Based upon mankind's abilities so far, I suspect that if & when erupting volcanoes and earthquakes become controllable, for the Earth, it will presage evil days to come.

What we can do is to avoid wrecking everything in our supreme collective arrogance and sheer stupidity and stop assuming that Mother Nature can always be relied-upon to empty the trash can.

The only supreme collective arrogance and sheer stupidity I see, is coming from the GW supporters that expect to micro-manage people they predict aren't concientious enough to manage themselves, but they MUST be managed regardless.

DC

It sounds impossible that any car's exhaust could be cleaner than the intake air! Although it all depends upon what cleaner actually means.

I suppose it really depends upon who supplied the statistics.

I heard somewhere that smoking cigarettes is supposed to be good for you. Or has that changed recently? [Good statistics, bad statistics?]

My comments on the flip side where to provoke some thought away from the knee jerk sound bite comments. As all statistics they need to be taken with a view to the big picture, and are usually not.

So to car's; In LA (where I used to live) cars are emission tested to the required standards, much like the UK (where I'm from) by sticking a probe up the exhaust and running the engine as required. If the emissions are over the required levels the car fails.. OK?

If you take the probe out and wave it about in the air on what the tv called 'poor air quality days' the AIR would fail the same emissions test for one thing or another. During the same period cars would pass the test. A local TV channel carried the piece and I didn't beleive it. Until I had my truck tested and asked the operator to do the same thing, wave the probe in the air out on the street. Truck passed, the Air didn't.

If you look at, say Ford's emission rating for a Focus they give no, co, co2, particulate and other rated emissions. Look at the environmental studies for LA and the measures they're often Higher than California allows for the cars emissions standards. Which is in part why they have them.

Hence my point. Cars are already pretty clean.

As to how a car can 'emit' air that is 'cleaner' than it takes in, how do you think it converts a liquid (gas/petrol) which is pretty toxic into clean air either? Consider the engine is somewhere between 10-37% mechanically efficient.

I'm not suggesting we should not be doing all we can to improve efficiencies, reduce pullution or even costs which would be nice, but the method isn't always the simplest or obvious;

Catalysers: cost a lot to buy, have a huge 'carbon foot print' to make and yet require an oxidizing exhaust to work fully. Cars could be made to run as clean as a catalysed vehicle without the cost of extra fuel consumed or costs both financial or environmental to manufacture.

A prius has a high mpg (supposedly over 60mpg) mostly because it uses the electric motor around town and stop starts. On the open highway the pruis is actually LESS fuel efficent that its non hybrid counterparts because of the weight of the batteries, and the smaller motor. As a compromise it works best around town - so why not make them plugins and reduce the need to run the gas motor at all? We have a VW diesel 1900. Does an average 51mpg (US Gal). neighbor has a Pruis - he gets a true 44mpg average. Yet diesels are unpopular in the US because they're 'dirty'.

Regarding the pollution for different vehicles, it is essential that the Dust to Dust cost to the environment or total pollution load of vehicle production, disposal and running throughout its life is considered.

So it is possible but extremely unlikely that a Hummer could produce less pollution than a Prius.

However, given the vast differences in the pollution levels of running the vehicles, and based upon the scientifically established conclusion that the majority of a vehicle's pollution arises through its use, I very strongly suspect that the Hummer would need to stay parked most of the time to beat the Prius.

It is inevitable that a Hummer weighing 6400 lbs versus the Prius at 2921 lbs will produce more CO2 - even if the Prius used a conventional petrol engine. That is why the Hummer returns ~ 13 mpg [H2 as low as 1 mpg if thrashed (Jeremy Clarkson on BBC's Top Gear, from the H2's own computer)] and a Prius currently 50 mpg or more, I've heard 85+ mpg mentioned, (yes I noticed that this different from the figures below).

Let's be realistic, people do not buy cars to leave in the garage, they buy them to drive!

I must admit that when I read the nice green Hummer versus nasty & dirty Prius report, I smelled a rat [or suspected an April first publishing spoof, and I came across mentions of this report when I was looking for the Hummer statistics.

In-fact this report has been widely debunked and CNW seem not to have done their homework!

CNW Marketing Research Inc. – Study on Hybrid Efficiency
Excerpt [edited] below from http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/10/05/oh-so-a-hummer-is-not-greener-a-prius/
What is clear, however, is that the conclusions appear to be very different from the results of several other rigorous, scientifically-reviewed studies of the lifecycle impact of vehicles (e.g. Argonne National Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).

* Example 1: These studies conclude that (80-85%) of the total lifetime energy use of a vehicle comes from the driving stage, with the remainder coming from the remaining stages of a vehicle life, whereas the CNW study shows these percentages to be reversed.
* Example 2: Two Toyota models mentioned in the report, are engineered with the same processes, built on the same assembly line, transported and shipped together, distributed through the same dealer network, have the same engines and transmissions, are about the same weight (within 50 lbs.), and have very similar fuel consumption ratings (one just over 35 mpg combined, the other just below 35), yet the CNW study shows the lifetime energy use of these vehicles to be very different (53 per cent).
* Example 3: The CNW study states that hybrids require more lifetime energy than even large SUVs. Toyota's internal analysis does conclude that there is more energy required in the materials production stage for a hybrid, but that this is overwhelmingly made up for in the driving stage (the 80-85% stage), causing the hybrid to have a significantly lower lifetime energy use.

There are also basic factual errors in the report, for example CNW claim that the hybrid batteries are not recycled. - Not True


You miss the point.

I said the CARBON COST method of evaluating a vehicle says a Hummer is better than a Pruis. That is, the method of measure is wrong. Clearly a hummer is a rediculous vehicle, but a pruis isn't as clean as we'd like either. It takes a huge amount of energy to recycle the batteries and under the carbon cost method that tips the scales for those that want to.


As an aside, true or not there was a piece on Al Gore's Carbon cost crusade on TV last night. One interesting snip was that while he uses a huge amount of energy personally and in his businesses he 'offsets' that by making contributions to a carbon offset corporation who reinvest the funds into environmental research. Snip claims Gore also owns in whole or part the Carbon offset corporation too....

Whether you agree with his film, or believe it's a means to maybe run for pres once more, it seems his high profile antics might be doing more harm that good to the call for more responsible, environment concious energy.

So! This is a natural event over which we have no influence, and it would have happened whether or not Homo sapiens [was sapiens a Linnean joke?] was polluting the atmosphere.

Is this an excuse? Now that Mother Nature has had her turn, is it's Mankind's turn to cause additional damage?

It is highly likely that other natural events will occur that will affect the biosphere. We currently have no influence over them. Based upon mankind's abilities so far, I suspect that if & when erupting volcanoes and earthquakes become controllable, for the Earth, it will presage evil days to come.

What we can do is to avoid wrecking everything in our supreme collective arrogance and sheer stupidity and stop assuming that Mother Nature can always be relied-upon to empty the trash can.

Excuse? Nope, just putting things into context and I agree there's a lot of arrogance and stupidity going on. Human nature unfortunately.

Why does everyone think 'Mother Nature' is benevolent or even gives a sh$t whether we survive or not or wether our environment is actually condusive to our lives. Does Mother Nature exist on Mars, Venus? I'd like to see people suggest how we 'clean up' the pollution on venus. Should be amusing.

Again - natural occurances cause huge environmental changes. Not a lot we can do about it. Arrogant to think we can. Similarly the earth is constantly changing as is the sun and our systems position in the galaxy's plane. All of which do/can/maybe cause cyclic changes. So why do people insist in selecting the small bit of time, some 1000 years or so as the mean and that's the way it's got to stay?

Now, we SHOULD be doing all we can to reduce emissions, pollution, costs and other effects of over use of resources, it's a simple matter of economics. But stridant emotive crys about this stuff improves the situation about as well as another 'hummer to pick up the kids from school a mile down the road'.

Here's an idea. You can win 25 million for a means of sequestrating Co2. How about plant a tree. Or better yet stop cutting down the ones we have... Niave, maybe but the problem can and should be hit from more than one side.

So!, Climate change has also been proven to be a natural event. It has also happened despite no human influence. Is this an excuse to clear some peoples concience by regulating any emission that these activists would like control of, and theorize may contribute, even though it is .05% of all CO2 in the environment?

If it cannot be proven that man HAS caused the climate to change. I find it even more absurd to push theory that we could ever fix the climate in any imagination of effect, by only altering a portion of the .05% we do emit.
DC

For your information, I think your total man-made CO2 figure of 0.05% appears to be grossly in error. This is one eighth of the annual figure quoted by the IPCC. It is 1/600 of the total man-made CO2 figure quoted by the IPCC.
See below for quotes. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/044.htm

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states [2001, but new report due out this year] "The amount of carbon dioxide, for example, has increased by more than 30% since pre-industrial times and is still increasing at an unprecedented rate of on average 0.4% per year, mainly due to the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation. We know that this increase is anthropogenic because the changing isotopic composition of the atmospheric CO2 betrays the fossil origin of the increase."

This is of course the best estimate available and like any scientific measurements and reasoning may well be subject to amendment. But it has been peer reviewed, unlike the vast majority [if not all] of the contradictory so-called evidence. There is also widespread and increasing indirect observations that support the reality of Global Warming.

We have increased CO2 in the atmosphere
We know that atmospheric CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas
We know that the excess CO2 [non-natural] was put there by mankind recently.
We know that the world is warming-up in-line with CO2 concentrations
And ~90% of scientists are convinced that global warming is anthropogenic in origin.

That's good enough for me. Perhaps I'm easily swayed. I sure can't see where the faults are.

Maybe we should take this seriously, it's not as if we could move home [planet] easily.

......
We have increased CO2 in the atmosphere
We know that atmospheric CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas
We know that the excess CO2 [non-natural] was put there by mankind recently.
We know that the world is warming-up in-line with CO2 concentrations
And ~90% of scientists are convinced that global warming is anthropogenic in origin....

Your first three; increased CO2, CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, the excess CO2 appears to have come from fossil sources, are things that can be demonstrated from the data.

Your fourth one; warming-up in-line with CO2 concentrations does not demonstrate a causal relationship. In fact some of the reports I have seen quoted acknowledge that the increase in CO2 levels is not in-and-of-itself enough to cause the observed warming. This anomaly is resolved by making the assumption that the CO2 mediated increase is subject to a multiplier effect through the increase in water vapor that can be carried in the atmosphere as a result of the CO2 change.

Your fifth one; 90% of scientists are....carries no more weight than the toothpast commercials....4 out of 5 dentists advise using *******. That is a bad statistic.

Your fifth one; 90% of scientists are....carries no more weight than the toothpast commercials....4 out of 5 dentists advise using *******. That is a bad statistic.

Yes, I agree to some extent, I got that from the BBC [Radio 4], which is much more reliable than most press sources. I do not however know the provenance of this statistic. Although, I have read and heard a great deal about climate change and heard almost no credible contradictory scientific opinion regarding global warming. I have heard pseudo-scientific theories, mostly sunspots. But nothing substantial. Not scientific, but it seems to support the ~ 90% of scientists statistic.

As Oliver Letwin Said [I paraphrase: from memory - I couldn't find the reference] "I do not know whether Global Warming as described is happening, but what I do know, is that if we spend some billions of pounds to prevent Global Warning and later we find-out that it was all a mistake, all we will have done is wasted some money. If on the other hand, we do nothing and Global Warming as described is found to be real, then we will be in real trouble."

All the scientists that I have heard whether meteorologists, palaeoclimatologists, and biologists [all flavours], all refer to global warming as a fact. I know that the link between CO2 and temperature is not fully understood, but we do have a fair idea of what is going on. By the time we do know exactly the minutiae of the mechanism, and bearing in-mind how long it is likely to take for Homo sapiens to change his ways and that the predicted series of tipping points where irreversible secondary cascade effects begin to occur may be only a few decades away, there is no time to lose. If we wait long enough, the patient may either be dying or already dead. I am too old and it won't affect me, but it will affect the human beings alive on the planet, my descendants may be among them. It will also affect my [very] distant relatives - all life on Earth.


Secondary Cascade Effects
Secondary effects such as the melting of permafrost, destabilising of peat bogs, out-gassing of frozen ocean floor clathrates, all of which which are anticipated to liberate vast quantities of trapped methane - a powerful greenhouse gas. This out gassing will only serve to greatly accelerate the rate of global warming.
Ref. IPCC
"Methane clathrates (not counted in the resource base) are estimated to be approximately 780,000EJ. Estimated fossil fuel reserves contain 1,500GtC, being more than 5 times the carbon already released, and if estimated resources are added, there is a total of 5,000GtC remaining in the ground."

If we don't do enough, I won't be the only one that's [B]totally screwed!

.....I have heard pseudo-scientific theories, mostly sunspots. But nothing substantial.....

.... all refer to global warming as a fact. I know that the link between CO2 and temperature is not fully understood, but we do have a fair idea of what is going on........

.... the predicted series of tipping points where irreversible secondary cascade effects begin to occur may be only a few decades away, there is no time to lose.........

Secondary effects such as the melting of permafrost, destabilising of peat bogs, out-gassing of frozen ocean floor clathrates, all of which which are anticipated to liberate vast quantities of trapped methane - a powerful greenhouse gas.......

.....If we don't do enough, I won't be the only one that's totally screwed!

First I will say that no one needs to convince me Global Warming is occurring; there is plenty of evidence for that. But there is no direct evidence that human generated CO2 is the sole cause; merely speculation based on temperature changes supposedly paralleling CO2 changes. And the temperature changes are not direct measures but are obtained to a large extent via proxies that are processed through models. Human generated CO2 may be having an influence; focussing on it as a sole cause and decrying anyone who suggests otherwise is not good sense unless you can produce mechanistic relationships that support your conclusions.

Why do you refer to the putative sunspot link as pseudo-scientific? There are records indicating that global temperatures seem to have tracked sunspot activity throughout recorded history. And there is a proposed mechanism, the dependence of cloud intensity on Cosmic Ray flux which varies with solar activity.

Regarding the link between temperature and CO2 even the scientists who come out with the parallel graphs don't have a causal relationship. Their attitude is that because CO2 is known to be a green house gas any changes MUST be due to it.

The tipping point thing is puzzling; especially the clathrate release. It is well accepted that around 5000 or 6000 years ago global temperatures were much higher than now; higher than are expected to be reached even in the most extreme predictions of the IPCC. If the clathrate release scenario has any merit then they must have been released back then. Which means everything that exists now accummulated in 5000 years. Which is not feasible. So it seems unlikely it happened back then and just as unlikely now.

And regarding being totally screwed this is where I agree. If the cause is human generated CO2 we are screwed no matter what is done. It is literally impossible to significantly reduce CO2 emissions without totally disrupting our entire way of life. Our society is based on abundant low cost energy and there is a essentially a one to one relationship between energy availability and CO2 release. Truly reducing CO2 emissions by 20% means reducing energy use by 20%; total energy use. Not just driving 20% less but eating 20% less and buying 20% fewer gee gaws and cutting your heating and lighting back 20%. And even if this was done it would not instantly reverse the warming that has taken place. Actually it would probably have no noticeable effect on the warming for several decades; and initially it would simply be a levelling off at whatever it had got to during those decades. So whatever sea level rise is going to happen will happen, etc. Meanwhile the cut backs in energy useage have created mass unemployment and a total collapse of the global economy. So organising and investing in the infrastructure changes that will be necessary to relocate millions of people away from shoreline communities will be difficult to say the least.

I don't think we can do enough.

Its funny that we are all discussing this topic, each trying to argue their point across. The fact of the matter is, what ever the statistic and figure show, there is something happening to our environment.

Cutting down trees, burning and spewing out tonnes of fume from every machineries that uses fuel that are known to man are un-natural as far as the earth is concern. Human being on this earth is probably an accident. So logic will tell you that whatever we do here will affect this earth. But it is human's arrogance that will counter this logic and say its not our fault.

As someone here says, mother nature itself is creating some of these environmental changes. So do we really need to compound the problem?

And regarding being totally screwed this is where I agree. If the cause is human generated CO2 we are screwed no matter what is done. It is literally impossible to significantly reduce CO2 emissions without totally disrupting our entire way of life. Our society is based on abundant low cost energy and there is a essentially a one to one relationship between energy availability and CO2 release. Truly reducing CO2 emissions by 20% means reducing energy use by 20%; total energy use. Not just driving 20% less but eating 20% less and buying 20% fewer gee gaws and cutting your heating and lighting back 20%. And even if this was done it would not instantly reverse the warming that has taken place. Actually it would probably have no noticeable effect on the warming for several decades; and initially it would simply be a levelling off at whatever it had got to during those decades. So whatever sea level rise is going to happen will happen, etc. Meanwhile the cut backs in energy useage have created mass unemployment and a total collapse of the global economy. So organising and investing in the infrastructure changes that will be necessary to relocate millions of people away from shoreline communities will be difficult to say the least.

I don't think we can do enough.
Reply With Quote
I think you have hit the nail on this one.

I am no expert on these highly technical posts,but have a few questions or observations.
Ancient cultures seemed to dissapear without the use of automobiles etc.Easter Island had 15000 natives 2000years ago.All the forests were cut and to this day the island only has grasslands.This happened du to the size of the island.Perhaps this is happening to us,slower due to larger land mass.
Mayans also de forested for agriculture and dissapeared suddenly.Are we not doing the same on a much larger scale?The ancients managed to change
their local enviroment without the help of the internal combustion engine.
Larry

I am no expert on these highly technical posts,but have a few questions or observations.
Ancient cultures seemed to dissapear without the use of automobiles etc.Easter Island had 15000 natives 2000years ago.All the forests were cut and to this day the island only has grasslands.This happened du to the size of the island.Perhaps this is happening to us,slower due to larger land mass.
Mayans also de forested for agriculture and dissapeared suddenly.Are we not doing the same on a much larger scale?The ancients managed to change
their local enviroment without the help of the internal combustion engine.
Larry

Larry; There is an author by the name of Jared Diamond who has written a book called 'Collapse: How Societies Choose To Fail Or Succeed' which is an interesting read. He goes into such things as the Mayan and Easter Island failures.

Two other books worth reading are; 'Easter Island, Earth Island' and '1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus'.

Your comments are right on the mark; things are happening on a larger scale, 'local' now includes practically the whole globe.

Geof thanks for the reply and links or books ,
Iwill check them out.
Just to satisfy my poor puns or humor and stay within the CNC Zones purpose.How in the H%^$# did the Easter Islanders produce 1000 statues without CNC?
On a local note.As a teenager I grew up in northern Ontario and had a seckret remote fishing spot at the base of a waterfall.Upon returing 30years later 5miles down a narrow path I came upon as far as the eye could see total devisation,Just miles of mud.My thoughts were what happened,what a mess.Did a meteor strike?Also the waterfall was not there.Later I felt so stupid as it was just a clearcut and the waterfall was blasted for flood control.I doubt anything will grow there in my lifetime.I also hear loggers do not cut within 100yards of a highway so travellers will only see miles of trees and not see the disruption.My business relies on wood.What do I do?
Larry

Human generated CO2 may be having an influence; focussing on it as a sole cause and decrying anyone who suggests otherwise is not good sense unless you can produce mechanistic relationships that support your conclusions.

I'm not sure that many are decrying other causes of global warming, but most alternative mechanisms either turn-out to be either insignificant or fictional.

With CO2 we have a significant, albeit highly complex and not fully understood mechanism. The IPCC rate the effect of anthropogenic CO2 as the single largest factor influencing 'radiative forcing', with an assessed level of scientific understanding (LOSU) is 'High'. Other factors, both positive and negative are laid down with effect, error bars and LOSU assessment.

This document is multi-faceted and therefore not amenable to being readily summarised without distortion. It is better that those who wish to learn more read the document for themselves.
Reference:
IPCC 2007 CHANGES IN HUMAN AND NATURAL DRIVERS OF CLIMATE [Preliminary] (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf)

The basic problem is that some people tell lies, no I am not accusing members of this forum, but I believe that many people have been and are misled or confused by the intentionally pseudo-scientific disinformation touted by those with axes to grind. Who might benefit [in the short-term] from such disinformation? Well, I believe one would not really have to look very far: the usual suspects would be any company that would benefit from the sale of carbon-based energy or products that are profligate energy users.

Such disinformation is intended and crafted to confuse the man in the street. It's not that the man in the street is stupid, it's just that he doesn't have the time or inclination to attempt to understand what only a few can. This is doubly difficult because it requires understanding a variety of scientific disciplines and is heavily mathematical. I freely admit that I don't understand the workings of the climate an any detail, but I do distrust unattributed statistics that are wholly inconsistent with the peer-reviewed findings of the independent IPCC, especially when they are quoted without a source in newspapers or on the TV because I am suspicious that these may have originated from one of the usual suspects' PR department. It is possible that the statistics are good, but in the end attribution is essential.

The problem is that everyone in the Western World and others elsewhere live energy-intensive lifestyles. Reducing our energy use will involve expense and prolonged inconvenience. Naturally, many are deeply attached to cheap foreign holidays [air flights], cars, air conditioning.

Well, it's hardly surprising, that faced with the real inconvenience of a reduced-energy lifestyle and the confusing plethora of conflicting messages about whether energy use is really linked to global warming. Many have decided to carry blithely on as before.
They

Think that long hot Summers and warmer Winters wouldn't be so bad.
Don't really want to know how disastrous runaway Global Warming might be.
Think that Global Warming is a myth, or if it isn't, it might not happen anyway.
Think who cares? they'll be dead by then!

As a teenager I grew up in northern Ontario and had a secret remote fishing spot at the base of a waterfall. Upon returning 30years later 5miles down a narrow path I came upon as far as the eye could see total devastation,Just miles of mud.My thoughts were what happened,what a mess. Did a meteor strike?Also the waterfall was not there. Later I felt so stupid as it was just a clearcut and the waterfall was blasted for flood control. I doubt anything will grow there in my lifetime. I also hear loggers do not cut within 100yards of a highway so travellers will only see miles of trees and not see the disruption.
Larry

Isn't it scary, that the world is being changed so fast and yet the changes are being hidden from us!

The real reason that the loggers leave that 100 yards, is most probably that they have realised that most local people won't even notice what has been going on - and they were right. If people noticed the destruction, I'm sure some would protest. And I'm pretty certain, that the loggers are happy to keep us in ignorance.

This is yet another kind of disinformation, only this one is visual and uses natural camouflage rather than words. Though it is still calculated to deceive.

This kind of devastation could never have happened so easily without cheap energy and it would also have taken many times longer. More time for it to be discovered and for protests to be made. Now such things can be done in a fraction of the time. By the time people find-out it's all done and dusted.

It's another nail in our collective coffin.

Though it's really nice to know that it made a few people richer.

Isn't it scary, that the world is being changed so fast and yet the changes are being hidden from us!

The real reason that the loggers leave that 100 yards, is most probably that they have realised that most local people won't even notice what has been going on - and they were right. If people noticed the destruction, I'm sure some would protest. And I'm pretty certain, that the loggers are happy to keep us in ignorance.

This is yet another kind of disinformation, only this one is visual and uses natural camouflage rather than words. Though it is still calculated to deceive.

This kind of devastation could never have happened so easily without cheap energy and it would also have taken many times longer. More time for it to be discovered and for protests to be made. Now such things can be done in a fraction of the time. By the time people find-out it's all done and dusted.

It's another nail in our collective coffin.

Though it's really nice to know that it made a few people richer.

I agree 100% on this. And the saddest thing is that there are people here who supports the notion that global warming is a myth and concocted by some scientists. I don't get it. What gain could they possibly get from exposing the truth? Ok beside the fact maybe, just maybe some of them have created an environmentally friendly system to replace fossil fuel. If they did, I will want them to produce it and i will support it. I am sure millions if not billions others will support it. And creates new jobs opportunity in the process.

Now as for these brilliant scientists and climatologist that says global warming isn't happening and the earth will cycle itself. I tend to believe that these people are the ones with the most to lose. They are probably working for some fossil fuel crazed conglomerates. Think about it. And sadly there are these people that don't give a damn about the earth they lived in.

As humans we like to control the enviroment.Forest fires are natural,but our efforts to control them is causing a worse problem.Natural fires were generally small only burning the underbrush leaving larger trees standing and free to grow.Constant fire fighting has allowed the brush to accumalate making forest fires enfernos.California perfect example.So much fuel accumalated in under brush that any fire is huge and uncontroable.I have been in the "bush"in northern Canada.The underbrush is so thick I wonder how a moose can get through it.Any solution?I dont think so as the damage done from fire fighting over the last 100 years has made all fires into big ones.
Larry

..... has made all fires into big ones....Larry

The BIG one is yet to come. By this I mean a fire starting in the swath of beetle killed pine that now extends almost from the BC coast to the Alberta/Saskatchewan border. When this lot goes up you will probably see the smoke in Europe.

HEY GEOF,
Its Me Larry Galellio.We meet again,The earth is as flat as the politians heads.Did not know about the beetle killed pine sounds serious.What can be done I ask you?I feel its to late.The only thing I can think of is take it as it comes.You know me for bad puns,but some may result in action,if any action is going to help.
Pun one.A huge fire will kill the beatles?
Pun two.Marshmellows and hotdogs on sticks will become popular?
You got any serious solutions?
Glad to hear from you
L galo

In the 1960's Mel Lastman gave refigerators to the Eskimos for promotion for Badboy stores.Did he see what was coming?Makes sence doesn't it?Give the eskimos airconditioners and global warming will be elimated.Sorry for the poor joke,but is there a solution?

As humans we like to control the enviroment.Forest fires are natural,but our efforts to control them is causing a worse problem.Natural fires were generally small only burning the underbrush leaving larger trees standing and free to grow.Constant fire fighting has allowed the brush to accumalate making forest fires enfernos.California perfect example.So much fuel accumalated in under brush that any fire is huge and uncontroable.I have been in the "bush"in northern Canada.The underbrush is so thick I wonder how a moose can get through it.Any solution?I dont think so as the damage done from fire fighting over the last 100 years has made all fires into big ones.
Larry

Larry,
Isn't it amazing, that human kind with its so-called intelligence seems to make the same type of mistake again and again. The basic problem is always that we know we can do things better than nature, but we completely fail to appreciate that life on Earth has evolved to cope with natural events and disasters over millions of years. In consequence, organisms of all kinds do not need human intervention, except where humans have already screwed things up.

In attempting to improve things, we make things worse, often much worse.
To put this principle in a nutshell - If it ain't broke don't fix it!

Back to your observations
I read an article about this very matter, pre internet [at least for me anyway, so I think around 1998]. I it might have been in Scientific American or National Geographic, but it might have been elsewhere.

As I remember the normal Forestry Service practice up to that time had always been to fight all fires, irrespective of origin. The result that the underbrush was building-up [like you mention] and when fires ignited [either deliberately or naturally] the fires were rapid growing, often reaching huge and impossible to control sizes, they also were burning very hot. According to the article, a decision was made to only fight man-made fires, but to leave natural wildfires to burn themselves out. It wasn't clear how the distinction between man-made and natural was made.

Apparently allowing the natural reduced the levels of underbrush and left a natural irregular patchwork of burnt and unburnt areas. Also, I seem to remember that because these wildfires fires were less hot, that certain trees [one or more types of conifer] which at that time had not been seeding well if at all, started producing viable seedlings. I think the conclusion was drawn that the seeds were able to survive the temperatures of a wildfire, but the previously encountered huge uncontrollable fires [from all that accumulated underbrush] to which you refer burned far too hot for seeds to remain viable.

I must admit that based upon the article, I rather thought US forestry Practice had changed. I must admit that I thought that the Canadians would have done the same sort of thing.

In retrospect, like many other things, it all seemed rather obvious. Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing!

On a completely different issue - I did foresee a disaster happening in Iraq if we invaded. Although I admit that things have got a lot worse there than I could have imagined!

Chris

....I read an article about this very matter, pre internet [at least for me anyway, so I think around 1998]. I it might have been in Scientific American or National Geographic, but it might have been elsewhere. .....

.......I must admit that based upon the article, I rather thought US forestry Practice had changed. I must admit that I thought that the Canadians would have done the same sort of thing......

You should maybe try to find the article again. To my knowledge the only fire that was allowed to burn freely was the one in Yellowstone several years ago. Fires near communities are still suppressed as before, unsurprisingly, if you owned a house somewhere out there would you be happy if everything was just allowed to burn "because that is the natural way"?

It is not possible to suddenly change practices like flicking a switch. All the underbrush and extra tree growth that has built up over almost century or so of diligent fire suppression will not go away. Allowing fires to simply run wild through this is not the solution, however, a few years ago when a proposal was put forth to allow or encourage logging in some areas with the added condition that thinning and undergrowth clearance be carried out in adjacent areas there was an outcry from the greenies.

It is correct that this situation has developed over two or three human generations due to the well meaning intervention policy and it is all very well to preach that if it ain't broke don't fix it, but that does not provide a solution.

You should maybe try to find the article again. To my knowledge the only fire that was allowed to burn freely was the one in Yellowstone several years ago. Fires near communities are still suppressed as before, unsurprisingly, if you owned a house somewhere out there would you be happy if everything was just allowed to burn "because that is the natural way"?

It is not possible to suddenly change practices like flicking a switch. All the underbrush and extra tree growth that has built up over almost century or so of diligent fire suppression will not go away. Allowing fires to simply run wild through this is not the solution, however, a few years ago when a proposal was put forth to allow or encourage logging in some areas with the added condition that thinning and undergrowth clearance be carried out in adjacent areas there was an outcry from the greenies.

It is correct that this situation has developed over two or three human generations due to the well meaning intervention policy and it is all very well to preach that if it ain't broke don't fix it, but that does not provide a solution.

How true! The way to Hell is paved with good intentions!
But the point I was really trying to make is that mankind has a long track record of making things worse by trying to make things better [and failing miserably in the process]. And that before we try to fix things that aren't all that bad, that it's a good principle to stop and think first, before acting.
This has all the whiff of a decision that no-one actually made, I bet that it 'just happened', no-one either ever really thought about it nor its consequences.
The root cause was most probably either in the education of the staff or the structure of the management organisation of the Parks Authority / Forestry Service, [I'm not sure which].

I bet that the idea of allowing wildfires to burn themselves out either came from an ecologist, or a really canny old woodsman. Although many management structures have a poor record of disregarding advice from anyone outside their own organisation. Some management structures still don't even listen to those lower down.

In a way, I was offering a generic solution of how not to get into the mess in the first place! It was neither proposed nor intended as a realistic solution out of the greatly worsened state.

Update
I did a search of www.nps.gov looking for wildfires, their term is prescribed burn (http://www.nps.gov/wica/parkmgmt/firemanagement.htm), they have derived a sophisticated process somewhat different from the method mentioned in the article I read, all fires are suppressed. However a systematic process of prescribed burns is scheduled in the colder & wetter times of the year to consume the ~70 years of accumulated forest debris. Over time this should really pay off.

Edited quote from http://www.nps.gov/wica/parkmgmt/firemanagement.htm
In 1968, there was a radical change in the fire management policy for the National Park Service. This policy recognized the legitimate role that fire plays in the environment. It is a three part policy: first, it recognized that prescribed burns are needed to maintain a healthy environment; second, it allows naturally caused fire to burn so long as lives and property are not endangered; and last, it allows for total fire suppression when and where needed.

Another story.
I lived in Sudbury Ontario 45years ago,the nickle capital of Canada.As a young boy at the time I used to play on the rocks.There was no trees or vegation which I thought normal.We knew of pollution back then as when someone landed a fish from Ramsy lake it made headlines in the local paper.Sudbury was used to test lunar landing modules as the terrain was so similar to the moon.
In the winter I remember some days the snow was pink from pollution from the smelters.This does not happen now as the smokestacks are much higher now.Reasuring is it not?
Why no trees?Apparently the Sudbury area was forested,but when Chicago burnt there was great demand for timber which came from the Sudbury area.
At the same time the mining and smelters started and the resulting pollution
did not support any vegetation or tree growth.Thinking back so long ago,Really there was one skimpy tree per mile in a wasteland.We knew of pollution effects 50 years ago and the solution seems to be higher smoke stacks.Nothing ground breaking has been done in half a century.Actually we the consumer are guilty as we want products which pollute the enviroment.
Larry

Who would have settled in Sudbury if it were not the site of a meteor impact? It seems the mineral deposits were the source of income that attracted people to the area.

Wikipedia, although not an authoritative source, gives a slightly different interpretation. It says dramatic changes have been made in Sudbury in the last 50 years:

"In the late 1970s, private, public, and commercial interests combined to establish an unprecedented "regreening" effort. Lime was spread over the charred soil of the Sudbury region by hand and by aircraft. Seeds of wild grasses and other vegetation were also spread. In twenty years, over three million trees were planted. The ecology of the Sudbury region has recovered dramatically, due both to the regreening program and improved mining practices, and in 1992 the city was given the "Local Government Honours Award" by the United Nations, in honour of its innovative community-based strategies in environmental rehabilitation. More recently, the city has begun to rehabilitate the slag heaps that surround the Copper Cliff smelter area, with the planting of grass and trees."

Also, the use of multi-cyclones, electrostatic precipitators and bag houses to limit emissions has dramatically reduced atmospheric contamination from the smelters.

They also say that the "moonscape" story is a myth.

"During the Apollo manned lunar exploration program, NASA astronauts trained in Sudbury, to become familiar with shatter cones, a rare rock formation connected with meteorite impacts. However, the popular misconception that they were visiting Sudbury because it purportedly resembled the lifeless surface of the moon dogged the city for years."

If consumer preferences changed and stainless steel went out of fashion, a lot of people in the area would be out of work.

It was a lot worse in the beginning days, when technology did not exist to efficiently process the ore. In those days, they used an open roasting process that used local trees. It put a huge amount of stuff into the air. Everybody involved knew what it was doing to the local environment, but the decision was consciously made to do it in order to make a living at it.

In the final analysis, most heavy metals are considered environmental poisons, and that includes nickel and copper. And the sulphur that they are bound up with is some stinky-ass poisonous stuff that makes for real acid rain when it is put into the air. If the wild environment in the area would be better off undisturbed, what would the value to humans be?

--97T--

Your channel CNN last Wed or Thursday just screwed up major. I am sure we will never hear this report again. In a writen blurb running across the bottom of the screen I read the following bit of news. The souther polar ice cap of Mars is melting the planet appears to be warming! See I told you those damn Martians are screwing up their atmosphere too. Those sick and twisted poluter. I think they have the heat ray pointed at our poles. All I want to know now is how the left will explain our polution is affecting Mars. Stay tooned Al G. and Stephen H. have a hell of alot of congering to do to pull the table cloth out from under this to blame it on us. I am sure it could have nothing to do with solar flares. Has anyone thought who is on the sun that needs help? Hey they are shooting flares. It must be at night when it is dark out. Our Mars mission must have taken just enough polution inside of one of the steril cans to screw up the whole Martin atmosphere. HOW WILL THE DEMOCRATS EXPLAIN THE PROBLEM WITHOUT A REPUBLICAN ON THE SURFACE OF MARS? Did someone just hear the house of card start to fall? LOL I am having a good day now. Think I will go mow the yard at noon and crush some styrofoam. Oh yea and turn a few more lights on at Al Gores house please. Oh yea done think because you don't drive into on comming trafic that you are smarter than the rest of us. Wow am I having fun here.(nuts)

Another story.
I lived in Sudbury Ontario 45years ago,the nickle capital of Canada.As a young boy at the time I used to play on the rocks.There was no trees or vegation which I thought normal.We knew of pollution back then as when someone landed a fish from Ramsy lake it made headlines in the local paper.Sudbury was used to test lunar landing modules as the terrain was so similar to the moon.
In the winter I remember some days the snow was pink from pollution from the smelters.This does not happen now as the smokestacks are much higher now.Reasuring is it not?
Why no trees?Apparently the Sudbury area was forested,but when Chicago burnt there was great demand for timber which came from the Sudbury area.
At the same time the mining and smelters started and the resulting pollution
did not support any vegetation or tree growth.Thinking back so long ago,Really there was one skimpy tree per mile in a wasteland.We knew of pollution effects 50 years ago and the solution seems to be higher smoke stacks.Nothing ground breaking has been done in half a century.Actually we the consumer are guilty as we want products which pollute the enviroment.
Larry


Higher smoke stack construction:

Generally means that scrubbers have been added to exceed the gov't regulations on emissions. I say exceed since it is an expensive undertaking and industry doesn't want the new expense every few years when the gov't tightens those standards. Case in point a local P&G plant has a water curtian system to filter the exhaust from their boilers, even before it was required. Eco friendly boilers that use pecan shells, peanut hulls and various waste woods from local timber processing plants, abudant in SW GA, that would otherwise end up in an inert waste landfill. The water that is used is treated with a solution that causes impurities to settle out and nuterilizes it with the sludge going to dumpsters and the clear water is recirculated. Meaning the waste water is of drinking quality and the small portion that escapes is not a hazard.
On a cold day you see steam issuing from the smoke stacks. Local eco nuts decided to protest, got the Atlanta affiliate of NBC down to cover it, up until a spokesman (drafted engineer) went out to give an interview. Cameras packed up and left, protesters left with no aduance, read rebels without a clue.
The sludge is taken to a local landfill and dumped in the compost section along with what little ash is left from the combustion chamber and sold to fertiziler companies in bulk lots. Very eco friendly but the ill informed, which most passionate people that are anti-industry and pro-envronment are, still tried to make an issue out of it. So have you asked the local plant people about their smoke stacks??? Hmmm might be a good idea if you haven't.

Scott

While I prefer to keep my state of denial, only with an ounce of circumspection. Given the additional information(old news) like melting ice caps on Mars to be far more relevant to the cause and effect relative to solar system temperatures, than any human activity on earth. Considering that Mars is further from the sun and shows natural tendencies reacting to sun spots and/or solar flares. The effects on earth would likely be compounded in that reaction, being closer to the source.

If we look at this pragmatically, there are some coincidental evidences at minimum to be aware of and not totally ignore. Specifically the rate of global growth in both population and economies which will produce and thereby increase consumption of energy of all types. The exponential pollution in the distant future will likely have an effect on several aspects of the global environment. There should be a lot more effort spent to circumvent that besides serendipitous rants of the rich and famous.The people that are jumping on this bandwagon produce more greenhouse gasses preaching to the choir in the last few years than I will in my entire lifetime if not several average lifetimes. There must be no shame in polluting for the cause, to send the commoner on a guilt trip. Carbon credits do not sell themselves. Eventually we may be forced to pay into the system regardless if it ever returns a dimes worth of technological advances in generations to come. I imagine these companies to be run as non-profits that render huge paychecks and not much else.

I have read the current estimate of fossil fuels could run out or become very limited in the next 100 years. So far what has been proposed as alternative energy rarely has any advantages. Most appear to be circus potions with such tall claims to even consider large scale usage. Many just exchange one form of pollution for another. Others are economically unfeasible and far less efficient. Never expect to reach unity from a waste product that can be reused, without putting more energy in it than we can ever get back out.

Although the current hyped urgency is over blown, I'm not willing to forego my creature comforts using my lawn or recreational equipment to satisfy a few worry warts. My concern is that there will be additional taxation and restrictive laws supporting a vain effort to satisfy the will and con-science of a few with the power and influence to do so. The very same mentality that decries tracking phone conversations as a civil liberties issue despite its intended purpose, wants to dictate your use of their world above and beyond your consent.

I'll do my part by cutting down on my bean intake!:)

DC

Cut your energy use to conserve it for China. They will need it to perform the manufacturing industries that we are driving out of North America.

--97T--

97T Right on.I am inthe speaker business in Canada and major players have closed and moved to China.Previously they were only buying parts but have closed here only having distribution.Need a job?Move to China.
Larry

My opinion on global warming,:bs:,that pretty much sums it up. I think we need to worry about that massive rock floating above our heads first.