Basically, Greenhouse gases are a reality but all we can do is guess as to the consequences, but needless to say whatever they may be, they are not going to be good.
Printable View
Basically, Greenhouse gases are a reality but all we can do is guess as to the consequences, but needless to say whatever they may be, they are not going to be good.
This is a belief not a fact.Quote:
all we can do is guess as to the consequences, but needless to say whatever they may be, they are not going to be good.
Yup.
Even worse what is 'good' for some might be 'bad' for others.
okay, explain how greenhouse gases can be good? We're either going to enter a new ice age (due to cooling gulf streams) or a heat wave. Perhaps the two will happen and a balance will occur? :confused:
Well, for a start the greenhouse gases have been keeping us fairly warm over the last billion or so years :lol:
Again a belief and not a fact.Quote:
We're either going to enter a new ice age (due to cooling gulf streams) or a heat wave
. . . or so you believe . . . ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Okay, between you genius's you surely can come up with a consequence of the build up of greenhouse gases? Yes yrywddfa, greenhouse gases have kept us toasty, but they haven't reached these levels due to artifical tampering, neither has the ozone layer disapeared
Well, OK. But there are a lot of issues to consider:
(i) The earth is warming.
(ii) The concentration of CO2 is increasing at a somewhat correllated rate to temperature
(iii) There is no proven link between (i) and (ii)
If you consider that the earth warming for a given reason. If the earth is warming the oceans will give up more of their CO2. This would account for the apparent correlation between the graphs.
What is not known, and it needs to be studied, is the concentration levels of CO2 required in order to initiate a runaway global warming catastrophe.
ie Is there sufficient CO2 (whether anthropogenic in origin, or otherwise) to, with all other things considered, initiate an upward trend in temperature.
There is a general scientific consensus (you can read my thoughts on 'scientific consensus' in other threads) that the CO2 levels are indeed concentrated enough.
However . . .
A correlation is not causation, and observation does not necessarily lead to evidence.
Even worse the models used to measure this stuff are all proprietary and of commerical benefit so are never published. The source data used is sometimes suspect. Journals swerve round things like a peer-review.
And politics has got involved.
If I'm honest, I would hold my hands up and say "I don't know" but I'm highly suspicious of the whole area.
I too am sometimes suspicious that we are not told everything. However, what concerns me is that we spend so long studying what's going on that by the time we may have found out it IS a problem, it's too late to do anything about it.
Well I think that there is widespread agreement that continuing to pollute our home is a bad idea.
We should clean up our act regardless of the facts and fictions regarding anthropological climate change.
Indeed, and the problem is that the two largest polluters (US and China) seem to just want to close their eyes and pretend nothing is wrong. Shameful
The alternative would be to take steps to alter our environment anytime someone simply speculates that there might be a problem with it. The problem with this, besides the fact that it is economically unfeasible, is that we may cause secondary problems in our attempt to fix the perceived primary problem. It’s never a good idea to jump into something without enough information about the problem.Quote:
what concerns me is that we spend so long studying what's going on that by the time we may have found out it IS a problem, it's too late to do anything about it.
Except that CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a necessary part of our ecosystem.Quote:
Well I think that there is widespread agreement that continuing to pollute our home is a bad idea.
We should clean up our act regardless of the facts and fictions regarding anthropological climate change.
I thought we just established here that we’re not sure if there is a problem or not. What is so shameful about taking deliberate measures to determine what the proper remedy to the situation is (if any) rather than taking knee-jerk reactionary actions that may not help anything?Quote:
the problem is that the two largest polluters (US and China) seem to just want to close their eyes and pretend nothing is wrong. Shameful
A truly US reply. There IS a problem (general pollution), that has been agreed, what hasn't been agreed is what the resulting consequences are (warming, cooling, etc.)Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Yes, CO2 is part of an ecosystem but like anything, too much of it can kill, and too much is what we will have in a few decades. What is currently at question is what effect the continuing pollution will have on the planet.
Yes, secondary problems may occur but it is better than standing here sucking our thumbs and doing nothing. Pollution is bad, and has to be reduced as much as possible, something the US and China will not agree to because of the financial cost. The Kyoto agreement is simply a way of reducing general pollution, not just greenhouse gases, to as low as viably possible
Let’s separate two things:
General Air pollution
Greenhouse Gasses.
I don’t know what the Kyoto treaty says about general air pollutants but I would suspect that you’ll find the US is much more in-line with other countries when it comes to this area.
Carbon emissions in the United States are now projected to be 43 percent above the Kyoto Treaty cap by 2010. In practical terms, that means the US would be faced with trying to cut energy consumption by a third to meet treaty requirements. High taxes and rationing are the tools the government would most likely use. This would kill the US economy and negatively effect the world economy as well. This result is actually one of the reasons for the Kyoto treaty. Many around the world do not want the US using more than “their share” of the world’s energy supply. Others begrudge the US its prosperity and want to take it down (economically). No US politician in his right mind would acquiesce to these demands based solely on unsubstantiated claims.
:lol:
The world against you huh? So much for allies, as the world is against you perhaps you think the UK (your greatest ally in these past few years) is also against you?
The kyoto agreement deals with ALL types of pollution and it has hit every country financially, even the UK. However, I would happily add a few pounds to my taxes if it meant a huge reduction in pollution so that my children can live in safety
There is a big difference between saying the “world is against us” and “many around the world” oppose our energy policies and economic prosperity.Quote:
The world against you huh? So much for allies, as the world is against you perhaps you think the UK (your greatest ally in these past few years) is also against you?
Everything I’ve read about the treaty says it only deals with the six so called greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs. A couple of these are also in the general air pollution category also. Of course carbon dioxide is the main sticking point.Quote:
The kyoto agreement deals with ALL types of pollution
Unfortunately, adding a few pounds to everyone’s taxes is going to do nothing to reduce carbon dioxide emissionsQuote:
I would happily add a few pounds to my taxes if it meant a huge reduction in pollution
I do have a suggestion for a solution that would reduce US carbon emmisions without crippling the economy.
Replace our coal-burning power plants with nuclear power plants. Oh.. but we can't do that because the same airheads in the US who are complaining about greenhouse gasses are preventing us from building any new nuclear facilities.
Actually, it is unlikely that the cost of cleaning this up will be measurable.
It is mostly the people who have a vested intererst in NOT fixing the problem who are saying that. The reality is that any attempt to alter the business as usual will create a new business as usual. This will mean that some current businesses will change, while others will be wiped out. However, new ones will replace the ones that are lost. This has happened again and again in the last few hundred years (technology changed MUCH more slowly before that point). Anxious people fearing change, and fearing a loss of their personal revenue streams will proclaim all sorts of doom over any perceived change.
As far as I am concerned, they can go cry on the shoulders of all those thousands of blacksmiths in every town that shoe the horses we all use for transportation.
Society changes its values and desires, and whole industries are wiped away in a matter of years or even less. Does this ruin us? No, it only ruins a few people who cannot adapt. Those are the ones doing the crying now, just as they were the ones who squalled when the Japanese provided real competition for in computers, cars, etc. They don't care about what is good for the world, they fear that any change will cause their comfortable streams of revenue to dry up.
The cost of cleaning up the stacks will not be met be companies burning massive piles of money. Instead the cost will be met by the purchase of items. This won't ruin the economy, it will only change it.
What's wrong with my suggestion of building nuclear power plants to replace the fossil-fuel burning plants?
I toured Seabrook plant (the last nuke plant to be built in the US). It was pretty impressive, and I am generally in favor of technology. However, there were a few issues that were disturbing. The expected lifespan of one of those plants is only a couple of decades. At that time, the plan is to break the reactor building down, entomb it in concrete, and keep anybody from going onto that patch of earth for a few tens of thousands of years.
I realize that no airborne waste is produced, and no polluted water need be created (as long as the design is sound), but the result will be a bunch of highly radioactive material with what amounts to an infiinite lifespan (infinite in that it will not become safe in a length of time greater than man has been on the earth). This means that we are creating a contamination which we cannot ever be rid of. Civilization could fall, and another could rise and fall again, and still this ground will be harmful to anybody or anything that lives on it.
Of course, there is natural radioactivity in granite. Supposedly, there are highway cuts in NH that have enough natural radioactivity that it is inadvisable to park in the road cut.
I know a lot about these things since I used to be a reactor technician aboard a US Navy Nuclear Submarine.
There are two sources of radioactive waste from a power plant.
1. spent fuel
2. reactor component corrosion
Regarding spent fuel, we could dramatically reduce the amount of waste in this area if we were allowed to reprocess the fuel. When a reactor’s fuel stops producing it is not because there is no more fissionable material to “burn” it is because the fission byproducts (i.e. Xenon) are competing for neutrons with the fuel. The reprocessing would remove these poisons from the remaining fuel to make it productive again. Currently, in the U.S. we are not allowed to reprocess fuel for reasons I don’t understand. It’s either a political thing or an environmental complaint.
Regarding reactor corrosion; there are many ways to reduce corrosion and prevent it from becoming radioactive. I’m surprised that they told you the plant is only going to last a couple of decades. All the plants I’ve worked at last much longer than that because they were built with these ideas in mind.
I'd rather be storing this waste underground than spewing the toxic waste of coal-fired plants into the air as we're doing today. That waste even contains radioactive elements itself.
I agree with hiker on thepoint that I think it is that the oil companies could lose an absolute fortune if the technology changed. Imgaine everyone using electric cars instead of petrol/gas. It also doesn't help that your president is from Texas, a state who's main wealth comes from oil production.
As for nuclear, although it is probably cleaner in the short term, it is not in the long term. Other sources need to be found, as to where who knows? We certainly need to start looking at alternatives now before the oil/coal reserves run out
SSPS's,
Gulf Stream Turbines,
Zero Point Energy Generators...
Yeah I don't understand why the breeder reactor design hasn't really taken off.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
We could always ship our waste into outer-space every decade or so (and I'm not joking)
Technologies that have been blocked/slowed due to the oil corporations' powers of persuasion with those in power :mad:
Yeah, but it makes no sense.
If someone 'invents' the next clean technology, gains the patents, they will 4e4 rich!
The problem is getting it built. The car manufacturer's probably have multiple contracts with the oil producers. Developing these clean technologies would also stop us relying on the Middle East so much
For those who love the C02/temp anomaly hockey stick chart here's another chart that has a line that follows temperature pretty close; and it has nothing at all to do with anthropological activity . . .
Article
That graph is nonsense, by the way. The editors of the journal ended up resigning stating (paraphrased) that they 'couldn't believe how such rubbish got published'Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Putin obviously watched Al Gore's documentary. Good going Al!Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Gore 2008!
The only reason why Russia signed that agreement is because under the treaty Russia is allowed to pollute at a level when they were still a superpower. Russia’s current emissions fall short of those allowed under the treaty (because they are no longer a superpower) so they will be able to sell those extra pollution credits to other countries at a profit. In other words Russia doesn’t have to do anything to curb their current pollution levels and can make a nice bit of money selling their extra pollution credits to other countries. I would sign an agreement like that too.Quote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
X
That's pretty stupid. Who the hell is making up these proposals? He needs to be fired.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
The US could cut their Co2 emissions dramatically, just by deporting any foreign tourist that exhales.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5109188.stm
not an opinion, just a link.
I've played around with the NOAA's interactive climate graphs.
The funny thing is if you stop at 1980 (1958-1980), you actually see a cooling trend of (-.75 degrees) for Chicago.
Now, I am beginning to wonder how many of these weather stations are subject to urban heating. Obviously a weather station on a tar roof of a commercial building is going to report higher temperatures than one sitting in the the middle of a forest.
The problem is almost all weather stations that are used to collect temperatures are subject to urban heating since most are located in urban areas. Perhaps the world is NOT getting hotter, but the city is.
An official NOAA temperature gauge has very strict guidelines as to where it can be, and the container it must be in. The box the gauge is in can be seen at any official weather site. It will be painted white, have baffles all around to enable air flow, and will be located a set height above grass in an area where no shadow falls on it during the course of the day. If you don't have grass, you don't have a valid gauge, or at least that's how it was. This doesn't remove the heating in urban areas, but it makes them more comparable.
I question your assertion that most stations are in urban areas. Frankly, I've never seen one in an urban area, but I've encountered plenty in VERY remote areas around the country. Of course, that's sampling bias because I'm rarely in urban areas, and often in very remote areas.
Indeed. Global warming is not called global because it measures the UHI effect. In fact even with this effect correlated and corrected the warming is quite marked. The time for scepticism, I'm afraid, has now passed. There is now sufficient evidence to support a warming planet; we no longer have any need of consensus, because the data now speaks for itself. There is still some degree of argument left on whether it is human beings causing climate change; but with recent carbon isotope measurements, I suspect that that point will be mute soon, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Let's be honest. The weather is certainly getting more erratic. Last month we had the hottest heat wave on record, now the UK is cold, wet and miserable and it's AUGUST!?!
Currently Northern Greece is suffering from the worst forest fires in centuries, another "random" effect? Maybe.
Unfortunately localised events are normally serialised and sensationalised by the media for maximum effect. The weather as it is today is not exceptional, nor was July's; breaking no climate records whatsoever. Global warming is a term used for the climate of the Earth and not of localised weather events.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978