http://www.physorg.com/news93596017.html
Manmade Global Warming is a con game. At no time in the history of the earth has an increase in CO2 caused the earth to warm up. An increase in CO2 follows warming. and the warming is caused by more sunlight reaching the earth because of fluctuations in the energy coming from the sun, or aerosols or orbital variations like the Milankovitch cycle.
LoonyParker. You have been proved wrong again and again. Stop grasping at straws like your fellow loonies and accept the conclusions of 2,500 scientists from 130 countries.
Kaneda
My friend.....
2500 scientists from 130 countries?
Not very many scientists in my opinion. And how many of those countries are third world countries.
And how many times are scientists wrong?
Wasn't it the Ice Age in the 70's? And in the 80's......TIME magazine had 15 minutes left till the end of the world. Remember?
I think the whole thing is a con.
I do however, believe that we are polluting the air, the water and the land with chemicals.
I've seen the black smoke coming out of smoke stacks in Mexico. Discusting. Even in my own city....I smell the gas company.....toxic. Cars....toxic.
Whatever motivates us to find cleaner burning feuls, that's great.
I say we connect stationary bikes to our homes and self power.....two hours a day. Maybe we wouldn't be so fat. Take all those bums on the street and put them in a big gym.....generators......Is that even possible? Could humans power themselves like this?
My friend.....
2500 scientists from 130 countries?
Not very many scientists in my opinion. And how many of those countries are third world countries.
And how many times are scientists wrong?
Wasn't it the Ice Age in the 70's? And in the 80's......TIME magazine had 15 minutes left till the end of the world. Remember?
I think the whole thing is a con.
I do however, believe that we are polluting the air, the water and the land with chemicals.
I've seen the black smoke coming out of smoke stacks in Mexico. Discusting. Even in my own city....I smell the gas company.....toxic. Cars....toxic.
Whatever motivates us to find cleaner burning feuls, that's great.
I say we connect stationary bikes to our homes and self power.....two hours a day. Maybe we wouldn't be so fat. Take all those bums on the street and put them in a big gym.....generators......Is that even possible? Could humans power themselves like this?
QUOTE (NotParker+Mar 20 2007, 04:00 PM)
http://www.physorg.com/news93596017.html
Manmade Global Warming is a con game. At no time in the history of the earth has an increase in CO2 caused the earth to warm up. An increase in CO2 follows warming. and the warming is caused by more sunlight reaching the earth because of fluctuations in the energy coming from the sun, or aerosols or orbital variations like the Milankovitch cycle.
I almost find it ridiculous that there are still people who, for whatever reason, can't beleive that it's not a con game. There is fact after fact after COLD HARD FACT that this is taking place. The only thing questionable is what the main cause is and is it more natural or unatural. But denying the obvious....... well i beleive thats ignorance.
Manmade Global Warming is a con game. At no time in the history of the earth has an increase in CO2 caused the earth to warm up. An increase in CO2 follows warming. and the warming is caused by more sunlight reaching the earth because of fluctuations in the energy coming from the sun, or aerosols or orbital variations like the Milankovitch cycle.
I almost find it ridiculous that there are still people who, for whatever reason, can't beleive that it's not a con game. There is fact after fact after COLD HARD FACT that this is taking place. The only thing questionable is what the main cause is and is it more natural or unatural. But denying the obvious....... well i beleive thats ignorance.
Believe it or not, Man is not the cause of everything. (not even everything bad)
The USA did not cause terrorism.
Al Gore is not the Second Coming.
Mars is warming. Man/the USA/CO2 didn't cause it.
Egocentrism is a sign of immaturity.
Grow up.
The USA did not cause terrorism.
Al Gore is not the Second Coming.
Mars is warming. Man/the USA/CO2 didn't cause it.
Egocentrism is a sign of immaturity.
Grow up.
QUOTE (kaneda+Mar 20 2007, 12:39 PM)
Stop grasping at straws like your fellow loonies and accept the conclusions of 2,500 scientists from 130 countries.
Except Kaneda simply makes up numbers.
The IPCC has three Working Groups and a Task Force
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/index.html
Working Group I assesses the scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change.
Working Group II assesses the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, negative and positive consequences of climate change, and options for adapting to it.
Working Group III assesses options for limiting greenhouse gas emissions and otherwise mitigating climate change.
The Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories is responsible for the IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme.
So what you really have is JUST ONE of the 4 groups that make up the IPCC that is involved with the SCIENTIFIC BASIS for Global Warming (note THEY have now dropped Global Warming and only refer to Climate Change)
Group 2 simply ASSUMES that the WG1 is correct and assesses the impact of said change.
Group 3 also ASSUMES that WG1 is correct and looks at how we could limit emissions.
Group 4 simply tracks our current emissions.
So ONLY the conclusions of the scientists in WG 1 are actually related to the SCIENCE behind GW.
Who are these scientists?
Here they are:
Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
List of Authors
Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
Hervé LE TREUT France Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
Richard SOMERVILLE USA Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
Ulrich CUBASCH Germany Climate processes, Climate modelling, Uncertainties
Yihui DING China Climate processes, Climate modelling
Cecilie MAURITZEN Norway Climate processes, Climate modelling, Uncertainties
Abdalah MOKSSIT Morocco Observations
Thomas PETERSON USA Observations
Michael PRATHER USA Climate processes, Climate modelling, Uncertainties
Alphonsus BAEDE The Netherlands Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
David GRIGGS United Kingdom Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
Maria MARTELO Venezuela Working Group I Vice Chair
Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing
Piers M. de F. FORSTER United Kingdom Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing
Venkatachalam RAMASWAMY USA Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing
Paulo ARTAXO Brazil Aerosol Forcing, Land-use Forcing
Terje BERNTSEN Norway Greenhouse gases, Aircraft Effects, GWPs
Richard A. BETTS United Kingdom Land-use Forcing
David W. FAHEY USA Greenhouse gases, Aircraft Effects
James HAYWOOD United Kingdom Aerosol Forcing
Judith LEAN USA Solar and volcanic forcing
David C. LOWE New Zealand Greenhouse gases,
Gunnar MYHRE Norway Land-use Forcing, Aircraft Effects, GWPs
John NGANGA Kenya Aerosol Forcing
Ronald PRINN USA Greenhouse gases, GWPs
Graciela RAGA Mexico Aerosol Forcing
Michael SCHULZ France Aerosol Forcing
Rob VAN DORLAND The Netherlands Greenhouse gases, Solar and volcanic forcing
Teruyuki NAKAJIMA Japan Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing
Veerabhadran RAMANATHAN USA Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing
Chapter 3: Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change
Philip JONES United Kingdom Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change
Kevin TRENBERTH USA Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change
Peter AMBENJE Kenya Surface climate, Tropics and sub-tropics, Extreme events
Roxana BOJARIU Romania Atmospheric circulation, Patterns of variability
David EASTERLING USA Surface climate, Extreme events
Albert KLEIN TANK The Netherlands Surface climate, Tropics and sub-tropics, Extra-tropics
David PARKER United Kingdom Surface climate, Free atmosphere, Atmospheric circulation, Patterns
of variability, Tropics and sub-tropics, Extra-tropics
Fatemeh RAHIMZADEH Iran Surface climate
James A. RENWICK New Zealand Surface climate, Atmospheric circulation, Patterns of variability,
Tropics and sub-tropics, Extra-tropics
Matilde M. RUSTICUCCI Argentina Patterns of variability, Tropics and sub-tropics, Extreme events
Brian SODEN USA Surface climate, Free atmosphere
Panmao ZHAI China Patterns of variability, Tropics and sub-tropics, Extreme events
Brian HOSKINS United Kingdom Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change
Bubu Pateh JALLOW The Gambia Working Group I Vice Chair
Tom KARL USA Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change
Chapter 4: Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground
Peter LEMKE Germany Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground
Jiawen REN China Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground
Richard ALLEY USA Snow, Sea ice, Glaciers, Ice shelves, Ice sheets, Frozen ground
Ian ALLISON Australia Sea ice, Ice shelves, Glaciers
Jorge CARRASCO Chile Snow, Sea ice, Ice shelves
Gregory FLATO Canada Snow, Sea ice, Ice shelves, Ice sheets, Frozen ground
Yoshiyuki FUJI Japan Ice shelves, Ice sheets
Georg KASER Austria Glaciers
Philip MOTE USA Snow
Robert H. THOMAS USA Ice sheets, Ice shelves
Tingjun ZHANG USA Snow, Frozen ground
Roger BARRY USA Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground
Toshio KOIKE Japan Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground
Chapter 5: Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level
Nathaniel L. BINDOFF Australia Observations: Ocean Climate Change and Sea Level
Jurgen WILLEBRAND Germany Observations: Ocean Climate Change and Sea Level
Vincenzo ARTALE Italy Ocean physics, Sea level
Anny CAZENAVE France Ocean physics, Sea level
Jonathan GREGORY United Kingdom Sea level projections
Sergey GULEV Russia Ocean physics, Ocean circulation
Kimio HANAWA Japan Ocean physics, Ocean circulation
Corrine LE QUÉRÉ Germany Biogeochemical tracers
Sydney LEVITUS USA Ocean physics, Ocean circulation
Yukihiro NOJIRI Japan Biogeochemical tracers
C. K. SHUM USA Sea level
Lynne D. TALLEY USA Ocean physics, Ocean circulation
Alakkat S. UNNIKRISHNAN India Sea level
Laurent LABEYRIE France Observations: Ocean Climate Change and Sea Level
David WRATT New Zealand Working Group I Vice Chair
Chapter 6: Paleoclimate
Eystein JANSEN Norway Paleoclimate
Jonathan OVERPECK USA Paleoclimate
Keith BRIFFA United Kingdom Paleoclimatic proxies
Jean-Claude DUPLESSY France Proxies, Paleoclimatic observations, Abrupt climate change,
Modelling
Fortunat JOOS Switzerland Proxies, Paleoclimatic observations, Modelling
Valérie MASSON-DELMOTTE France Proxies, Paleoclimatic observations, Abrupt climate change,
Modelling
Daniel OLAGO Kenya Proxies, Paleoclimatic observations
Bette OTTO-BLIESNER USA Paleoclimatic observations, Abrupt climate change, Modelling
Wm. Richard PELTIER Canada Paleoclimatic observations, Modelling
Stefan RAHMSTORF Germany Paleoclimatic observations, Abrupt climate change, Modelling
Rengaswamy RAMESH India Proxies, Paleoclimatic observations
Dominique RAYNAUD France Proxies, Paleoclimatic observations
David RIND USA Paleoclimatic observations, Modelling
Olga SOLOMINA Russia Proxies, Paleoclimatic observations
Ricardo VILLALBA Argentina Proxies, Paleoclimatic observations
De'er ZHANG China Paleoclimatic observations, Modelling
Jean JOUZEL France Working Group I Vice Chair
John MITCHELL United Kingdom Modelling
Chapter 7: Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry
Guy BRASSEUR Germany Coupling Between Changes in the Climate System and
Biogeochemistry
Kenneth L. DENMAN Canada Coupling Between Changes in the Climate System and
Biogeochemistry
Amnat CHIDTHAISONG Thailand Atmospheric chemistry
Philippe CIAIS France Carbon cycle, Land surface
Peter COX United Kingdom Carbon cycle, Land surface
Robert DICKINSON USA Land surface, Biogeochemical cycles
Didier HAUGLUSTAINE France Atmospheric chemistry, Air quality
Christoph HEINZE Norway Marine biogeochemical cycles
Elisabeth HOLLAND USA Carbon cycle, Atmospheric chemistry, Land surface, Biogeochemical
cycles
Daniel JACOB USA Atmospheric chemistry, Air quality, Biogeochemical cycles
Ulrike LOHMANN Canada Air quality, Aerosol effects, Biogeochemical cycles
Srikanthan (S.) RAMACHANDRAN India Air quality, Aerosol effects
Pedro Leite da SILVA DIAS Brazil Land surface, Biogeochemical cycles
Steven C. WOFSY USA Carbon cycle, Land surface, Biogeochemical cycles
Xiaoye ZHANG China Air quality, Aerosol effects
Review Editors
Kansri BOONPRAGOB Thailand Working Group I Vice Chair
Martin HEIMANN Germany Coupling Between Changes in the Climate System and
Biogeochemistry
Mario MOLINA USA Coupling Between Changes in the Climate System and
Biogeochemistry
Chapter 8: Climate Models and their Evaluation
David RANDALL USA Climate Models and their Evaluation
Richard A. WOOD United Kingdom Climate Models and their Evaluation
Sandrine BONY France Current climate, Processes, Climate sensitivity
Robert COLMAN Australia Current climate, Processes, Climate sensitivity
Thierry FICHEFET Belgium Thresholds and abrupt events, Simple models
John FYFE Canada Current climate, Climate variability, Processes, Extremes
Vladimir KATTSOV Russia Current climate, Climate variability simulations
Andrew PITMAN Australia Current climate simulations, Climate processes
Jagadish SHUKLA USA Current climate, Climate variability
Jayaraman SRINIVASAN India Current climate, Climate variability, Processes
Ron STOUFFER USA Current climate, Climate variability, Processes, Extremes, Climate
sensitivity
Akimasa SUMI Japan Current climate, Climate variability, Processes, Extremes
Karl E. TAYLOR USA Current climate, Climate variability, Extremes, Climate sensitivity
Elisa MANZINI Italy Climate Models and their Evaluation
Taroh MATSUNO Japan Climate Models and their Evaluation
Bryant MCAVANEY Australia Climate Models and their Evaluation
Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
Gabriele HEGERL USA Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
Francis ZWIERS Canada Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
Pascale BRACONNOT France Pre-industrial climate change
Nathan GILLETT Canada Reliability of predictions, Instrumental era climate change
Yong LUO China Climate response, Instrumental era climate change
Jose Antonio MARENGO Brazil Reliability of predictions, Instrumental era climate change
Neville NICHOLLS Australia Reliability of predictions, Instrumental era climate change
Joyce PENNER USA Climate response, Instrumental era climate change
Peter A. STOTT United Kingdom Climate response, Reliability of predictions, Instrumental era climate
change
David KAROLY USA Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
Laban OGALLO Kenya Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
Serge PLANTON France Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections
Gerald MEEHL USA Global Climate Projections
Thomas STOCKER Switzerland Global Climate Projections
William COLLINS USA Future radiative forcing, Timescales of response, Global projections,
Model uncertainties
Pierre FRIEDLINGSTEIN France Timescales of response, Global projections, Model uncertainties
Amadou Thierno GAYE Senegal Timescales of response, Global projections
Jonathan GREGORY United Kingdom Global projections, Sea level projections, Model uncertainties
Akio KITOH Japan Global projections, Model uncertainties
Reto KNUTTI Switzerland Climate change over different time scales, EMICs
James MURPHY United Kingdom Global projections, Model uncertainties
Akira NODA Japan Global projections, Model uncertainties
Sarah RAPER United Kingdom Global projections, Simple models
Ian G. WATTERSON Australia Global projections, Model uncertainties
Andrew WEAVER Canada Global projections, Sea level projections, Model uncertainties
Zong-Ci ZHAO China Global projections, Model uncertainties
Myles ALLEN United Kingdom Global Climate Projections
Govind Ballabh PANT India Global Climate Projections
Chapter 11: Regional Climate Projections
Jens Hesselbjerg CHRISTENSEN Denmark Regional Climate Projections
Bruce HEWITSON South Africa Regional Climate Projections
Aristita BUSUIOC Romania Downscaling, Regional projections
Anthony CHEN Jamaica Small Islands
Xuejie GAO China Regional projections
Isaac HELD USA Regional projections, Regional model uncertainties
Richard JONES United Kingdom Downscaling, Regional projections
Rupa Kumar KOLLI India Regional projections
Won-Tae KWON R. Korea Regional projections
René LAPRISE Canada Regional models, Downscaling, Regional projections
Victor MAGAÑA RUEDA Mexico Regional projections, Regional model uncertainties
Linda MEARNS USA Regional models, Downscaling, Regional projections, Regional
model uncertainties
Claudio Guillermo MENENDEZ Argentina Regional models, Regional projections
Jouni RÄISÄNEN Finland Regional projections, Regional model uncertainties
Annette RINKE Germany Regional models, Regional projections
Abdoulaye SARR Senegal Regional projections
Penny WHETTON Australia Regional models, Regional projections
Congbin FU China Regional Climate Projections
Filippo GIORGI Italy Working Group I Vice Chair
There are 170 scientists in the Scientific Working Group.
They are not from 130 different countries. (38 are from the USA, 17 are from the United Kingdom)
They are subdivided into specialties, such that any given scientists work does NOT mean they necessarily agree with the REST of the IPCC report.
To put this in perspective, there are ONLY 12 scientists that were responsible for the CRUCIAL question of Attribution (i.e. how much warming is natural vs man made) while nearly as many (11) of the scientists reported on the HISTORY of climate change and 42 of the scientists simply reported on OBSERVATIONS of temperature, ice cover and sea level.
There are just 2 lead Authors for each chapter who are responsible for the FINAL draft that is submitted to the 30 member bureau. This is where the politicians get involved and ONLY WHAT THE POLITICIANS agree to ever gets published.
Arthur
Except Kaneda simply makes up numbers.
The IPCC has three Working Groups and a Task Force
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/index.html
Working Group I assesses the scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change.
Working Group II assesses the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, negative and positive consequences of climate change, and options for adapting to it.
Working Group III assesses options for limiting greenhouse gas emissions and otherwise mitigating climate change.
The Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories is responsible for the IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme.
So what you really have is JUST ONE of the 4 groups that make up the IPCC that is involved with the SCIENTIFIC BASIS for Global Warming (note THEY have now dropped Global Warming and only refer to Climate Change)
Group 2 simply ASSUMES that the WG1 is correct and assesses the impact of said change.
Group 3 also ASSUMES that WG1 is correct and looks at how we could limit emissions.
Group 4 simply tracks our current emissions.
So ONLY the conclusions of the scientists in WG 1 are actually related to the SCIENCE behind GW.
Who are these scientists?
Here they are:
Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
List of Authors
Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
Hervé LE TREUT France Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
Richard SOMERVILLE USA Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
Ulrich CUBASCH Germany Climate processes, Climate modelling, Uncertainties
Yihui DING China Climate processes, Climate modelling
Cecilie MAURITZEN Norway Climate processes, Climate modelling, Uncertainties
Abdalah MOKSSIT Morocco Observations
Thomas PETERSON USA Observations
Michael PRATHER USA Climate processes, Climate modelling, Uncertainties
Alphonsus BAEDE The Netherlands Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
David GRIGGS United Kingdom Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
Maria MARTELO Venezuela Working Group I Vice Chair
Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing
Piers M. de F. FORSTER United Kingdom Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing
Venkatachalam RAMASWAMY USA Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing
Paulo ARTAXO Brazil Aerosol Forcing, Land-use Forcing
Terje BERNTSEN Norway Greenhouse gases, Aircraft Effects, GWPs
Richard A. BETTS United Kingdom Land-use Forcing
David W. FAHEY USA Greenhouse gases, Aircraft Effects
James HAYWOOD United Kingdom Aerosol Forcing
Judith LEAN USA Solar and volcanic forcing
David C. LOWE New Zealand Greenhouse gases,
Gunnar MYHRE Norway Land-use Forcing, Aircraft Effects, GWPs
John NGANGA Kenya Aerosol Forcing
Ronald PRINN USA Greenhouse gases, GWPs
Graciela RAGA Mexico Aerosol Forcing
Michael SCHULZ France Aerosol Forcing
Rob VAN DORLAND The Netherlands Greenhouse gases, Solar and volcanic forcing
Teruyuki NAKAJIMA Japan Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing
Veerabhadran RAMANATHAN USA Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing
Chapter 3: Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change
Philip JONES United Kingdom Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change
Kevin TRENBERTH USA Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change
Peter AMBENJE Kenya Surface climate, Tropics and sub-tropics, Extreme events
Roxana BOJARIU Romania Atmospheric circulation, Patterns of variability
David EASTERLING USA Surface climate, Extreme events
Albert KLEIN TANK The Netherlands Surface climate, Tropics and sub-tropics, Extra-tropics
David PARKER United Kingdom Surface climate, Free atmosphere, Atmospheric circulation, Patterns
of variability, Tropics and sub-tropics, Extra-tropics
Fatemeh RAHIMZADEH Iran Surface climate
James A. RENWICK New Zealand Surface climate, Atmospheric circulation, Patterns of variability,
Tropics and sub-tropics, Extra-tropics
Matilde M. RUSTICUCCI Argentina Patterns of variability, Tropics and sub-tropics, Extreme events
Brian SODEN USA Surface climate, Free atmosphere
Panmao ZHAI China Patterns of variability, Tropics and sub-tropics, Extreme events
Brian HOSKINS United Kingdom Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change
Bubu Pateh JALLOW The Gambia Working Group I Vice Chair
Tom KARL USA Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change
Chapter 4: Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground
Peter LEMKE Germany Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground
Jiawen REN China Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground
Richard ALLEY USA Snow, Sea ice, Glaciers, Ice shelves, Ice sheets, Frozen ground
Ian ALLISON Australia Sea ice, Ice shelves, Glaciers
Jorge CARRASCO Chile Snow, Sea ice, Ice shelves
Gregory FLATO Canada Snow, Sea ice, Ice shelves, Ice sheets, Frozen ground
Yoshiyuki FUJI Japan Ice shelves, Ice sheets
Georg KASER Austria Glaciers
Philip MOTE USA Snow
Robert H. THOMAS USA Ice sheets, Ice shelves
Tingjun ZHANG USA Snow, Frozen ground
Roger BARRY USA Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground
Toshio KOIKE Japan Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground
Chapter 5: Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level
Nathaniel L. BINDOFF Australia Observations: Ocean Climate Change and Sea Level
Jurgen WILLEBRAND Germany Observations: Ocean Climate Change and Sea Level
Vincenzo ARTALE Italy Ocean physics, Sea level
Anny CAZENAVE France Ocean physics, Sea level
Jonathan GREGORY United Kingdom Sea level projections
Sergey GULEV Russia Ocean physics, Ocean circulation
Kimio HANAWA Japan Ocean physics, Ocean circulation
Corrine LE QUÉRÉ Germany Biogeochemical tracers
Sydney LEVITUS USA Ocean physics, Ocean circulation
Yukihiro NOJIRI Japan Biogeochemical tracers
C. K. SHUM USA Sea level
Lynne D. TALLEY USA Ocean physics, Ocean circulation
Alakkat S. UNNIKRISHNAN India Sea level
Laurent LABEYRIE France Observations: Ocean Climate Change and Sea Level
David WRATT New Zealand Working Group I Vice Chair
Chapter 6: Paleoclimate
Eystein JANSEN Norway Paleoclimate
Jonathan OVERPECK USA Paleoclimate
Keith BRIFFA United Kingdom Paleoclimatic proxies
Jean-Claude DUPLESSY France Proxies, Paleoclimatic observations, Abrupt climate change,
Modelling
Fortunat JOOS Switzerland Proxies, Paleoclimatic observations, Modelling
Valérie MASSON-DELMOTTE France Proxies, Paleoclimatic observations, Abrupt climate change,
Modelling
Daniel OLAGO Kenya Proxies, Paleoclimatic observations
Bette OTTO-BLIESNER USA Paleoclimatic observations, Abrupt climate change, Modelling
Wm. Richard PELTIER Canada Paleoclimatic observations, Modelling
Stefan RAHMSTORF Germany Paleoclimatic observations, Abrupt climate change, Modelling
Rengaswamy RAMESH India Proxies, Paleoclimatic observations
Dominique RAYNAUD France Proxies, Paleoclimatic observations
David RIND USA Paleoclimatic observations, Modelling
Olga SOLOMINA Russia Proxies, Paleoclimatic observations
Ricardo VILLALBA Argentina Proxies, Paleoclimatic observations
De'er ZHANG China Paleoclimatic observations, Modelling
Jean JOUZEL France Working Group I Vice Chair
John MITCHELL United Kingdom Modelling
Chapter 7: Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry
Guy BRASSEUR Germany Coupling Between Changes in the Climate System and
Biogeochemistry
Kenneth L. DENMAN Canada Coupling Between Changes in the Climate System and
Biogeochemistry
Amnat CHIDTHAISONG Thailand Atmospheric chemistry
Philippe CIAIS France Carbon cycle, Land surface
Peter COX United Kingdom Carbon cycle, Land surface
Robert DICKINSON USA Land surface, Biogeochemical cycles
Didier HAUGLUSTAINE France Atmospheric chemistry, Air quality
Christoph HEINZE Norway Marine biogeochemical cycles
Elisabeth HOLLAND USA Carbon cycle, Atmospheric chemistry, Land surface, Biogeochemical
cycles
Daniel JACOB USA Atmospheric chemistry, Air quality, Biogeochemical cycles
Ulrike LOHMANN Canada Air quality, Aerosol effects, Biogeochemical cycles
Srikanthan (S.) RAMACHANDRAN India Air quality, Aerosol effects
Pedro Leite da SILVA DIAS Brazil Land surface, Biogeochemical cycles
Steven C. WOFSY USA Carbon cycle, Land surface, Biogeochemical cycles
Xiaoye ZHANG China Air quality, Aerosol effects
Review Editors
Kansri BOONPRAGOB Thailand Working Group I Vice Chair
Martin HEIMANN Germany Coupling Between Changes in the Climate System and
Biogeochemistry
Mario MOLINA USA Coupling Between Changes in the Climate System and
Biogeochemistry
Chapter 8: Climate Models and their Evaluation
David RANDALL USA Climate Models and their Evaluation
Richard A. WOOD United Kingdom Climate Models and their Evaluation
Sandrine BONY France Current climate, Processes, Climate sensitivity
Robert COLMAN Australia Current climate, Processes, Climate sensitivity
Thierry FICHEFET Belgium Thresholds and abrupt events, Simple models
John FYFE Canada Current climate, Climate variability, Processes, Extremes
Vladimir KATTSOV Russia Current climate, Climate variability simulations
Andrew PITMAN Australia Current climate simulations, Climate processes
Jagadish SHUKLA USA Current climate, Climate variability
Jayaraman SRINIVASAN India Current climate, Climate variability, Processes
Ron STOUFFER USA Current climate, Climate variability, Processes, Extremes, Climate
sensitivity
Akimasa SUMI Japan Current climate, Climate variability, Processes, Extremes
Karl E. TAYLOR USA Current climate, Climate variability, Extremes, Climate sensitivity
Elisa MANZINI Italy Climate Models and their Evaluation
Taroh MATSUNO Japan Climate Models and their Evaluation
Bryant MCAVANEY Australia Climate Models and their Evaluation
Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
Gabriele HEGERL USA Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
Francis ZWIERS Canada Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
Pascale BRACONNOT France Pre-industrial climate change
Nathan GILLETT Canada Reliability of predictions, Instrumental era climate change
Yong LUO China Climate response, Instrumental era climate change
Jose Antonio MARENGO Brazil Reliability of predictions, Instrumental era climate change
Neville NICHOLLS Australia Reliability of predictions, Instrumental era climate change
Joyce PENNER USA Climate response, Instrumental era climate change
Peter A. STOTT United Kingdom Climate response, Reliability of predictions, Instrumental era climate
change
David KAROLY USA Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
Laban OGALLO Kenya Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
Serge PLANTON France Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections
Gerald MEEHL USA Global Climate Projections
Thomas STOCKER Switzerland Global Climate Projections
William COLLINS USA Future radiative forcing, Timescales of response, Global projections,
Model uncertainties
Pierre FRIEDLINGSTEIN France Timescales of response, Global projections, Model uncertainties
Amadou Thierno GAYE Senegal Timescales of response, Global projections
Jonathan GREGORY United Kingdom Global projections, Sea level projections, Model uncertainties
Akio KITOH Japan Global projections, Model uncertainties
Reto KNUTTI Switzerland Climate change over different time scales, EMICs
James MURPHY United Kingdom Global projections, Model uncertainties
Akira NODA Japan Global projections, Model uncertainties
Sarah RAPER United Kingdom Global projections, Simple models
Ian G. WATTERSON Australia Global projections, Model uncertainties
Andrew WEAVER Canada Global projections, Sea level projections, Model uncertainties
Zong-Ci ZHAO China Global projections, Model uncertainties
Myles ALLEN United Kingdom Global Climate Projections
Govind Ballabh PANT India Global Climate Projections
Chapter 11: Regional Climate Projections
Jens Hesselbjerg CHRISTENSEN Denmark Regional Climate Projections
Bruce HEWITSON South Africa Regional Climate Projections
Aristita BUSUIOC Romania Downscaling, Regional projections
Anthony CHEN Jamaica Small Islands
Xuejie GAO China Regional projections
Isaac HELD USA Regional projections, Regional model uncertainties
Richard JONES United Kingdom Downscaling, Regional projections
Rupa Kumar KOLLI India Regional projections
Won-Tae KWON R. Korea Regional projections
René LAPRISE Canada Regional models, Downscaling, Regional projections
Victor MAGAÑA RUEDA Mexico Regional projections, Regional model uncertainties
Linda MEARNS USA Regional models, Downscaling, Regional projections, Regional
model uncertainties
Claudio Guillermo MENENDEZ Argentina Regional models, Regional projections
Jouni RÄISÄNEN Finland Regional projections, Regional model uncertainties
Annette RINKE Germany Regional models, Regional projections
Abdoulaye SARR Senegal Regional projections
Penny WHETTON Australia Regional models, Regional projections
Congbin FU China Regional Climate Projections
Filippo GIORGI Italy Working Group I Vice Chair
There are 170 scientists in the Scientific Working Group.
They are not from 130 different countries. (38 are from the USA, 17 are from the United Kingdom)
They are subdivided into specialties, such that any given scientists work does NOT mean they necessarily agree with the REST of the IPCC report.
To put this in perspective, there are ONLY 12 scientists that were responsible for the CRUCIAL question of Attribution (i.e. how much warming is natural vs man made) while nearly as many (11) of the scientists reported on the HISTORY of climate change and 42 of the scientists simply reported on OBSERVATIONS of temperature, ice cover and sea level.
There are just 2 lead Authors for each chapter who are responsible for the FINAL draft that is submitted to the 30 member bureau. This is where the politicians get involved and ONLY WHAT THE POLITICIANS agree to ever gets published.
Arthur
QUOTE (NotParker+Mar 20 2007, 04:00 PM)
Manmade Global Warming is a con game. At no time in the history of the earth has an increase in CO2 caused the earth to warm up. An increase in CO2 follows warming. and the warming is caused by more sunlight reaching the earth because of fluctuations in the energy coming from the sun, or aerosols or orbital variations like the Milankovitch cycle.
So your the kind of person who thinks that we can burn enough materials as to be able to obfuscate or, blur out, the Horizon line across better then two thirds of the United States, as (I) observed back in 99 when (I) crossed more then that, and all of the heat generated by all of that burning did well, nothing....??
If we follow the Solar Cycles then we know historically that it is a (roughly) five year time lapse between solar sunspot Cycle maximums and the earths' correspondence to it by temperature increase/decrease, since we just went through a maximum around 2001, the corresponding earth time slot would be 2006 (last summer and that heat) such that we should know, with a certainty that, if what you are assert is true, simply upon that basis, starting now and following into the next five years the Glaciers should start re-forming and/or growing, the northern Polar Ice cap should start re-building to it's previous (Pre-sunspot-cyclic) size, and the Near enough 1% of the Suns' daily output that we, as humans, are measured as generating and inputting into the system, should make No difference at all.....is that your assertion?
It is not mine as, even if it does start to cool, it will only be slightly in comparison to what it should be if it were not for the fact of all 6.5 Billion of us needing to eat everyday as that requires the energy equivalence of at least one fire, per person, per meal or easily six-point-five billion fires a day.
Have you ever seen the smoke from 6.5 billion trees burning? felt the heat of it? know that it affects the atmosphere? as that is all proven, well proven, by now, by many a scientist(s)
In my opinion the only 'con job' is by people who think we can't be causing it, cause we are.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Mar 20 2007, 05:32 PM)
even if it does start to cool, it will only be slightly in comparison to what it should be if it were not for the fact of all 6.5 Billion of us needing to eat everyday as that requires the energy equivalence of at least one fire, per person, per meal or easily six-point-five billion fires a day.
Have you ever seen the smoke from 6.5 billion trees burning? felt the heat of it? know that it affects the atmosphere? as that is all proven, well proven, by now, by many a scientist(s)
In my opinion the only 'con job' is by people who think we can't be causing it, cause we are.
The CON JOB is to go from fires to Burning TREES.
Sheesh.
Lets see one fire per person (can't we share?)
For the few minutes it takes to cook a meal each day.
Works out to one small fire per every ~ 840,000 sq ft. of the earth's surface or roughly one fire per every three football fields worth of space.
Yeah, I can feel the heat.
NOT.
Arthur
QUOTE (OldWoman1904+Mar 20 2007, 02:03 PM)
I say we connect stationary bikes to our homes and self power.....two hours a day. Maybe we wouldn't be so fat. Take all those bums on the street and put them in a big gym.....generators......Is that even possible? Could humans power themselves like this?
The very idea that you want to use the homeless for energy systems tells me you are a little odd, but if you had said that first we must of course give them shelter and adequate food with a whole pyramid of choices to stay healthy...and of course pay them like everyone else who works for someone then I might say hey great idea....is that where you were going with your thinking or were you being cruel?
QUOTE (Michael Tulloch+Mar 20 2007, 02:20 PM)
Believe it or not, Man is not the cause of everything. (not even everything bad)
The USA did not cause terrorism.
Al Gore is not the Second Coming.
Mars is warming. Man/the USA/CO2 didn't cause it.
Egocentrism is a sign of immaturity.
Grow up.
Nature has come to a point where now, unless you take individual responsibility, you cannot grow. More than this nature cannot do. It has done enough. It has given you life, it has given you opportunity; now how to use it, it has left up to you.
The USA did not cause terrorism.
>>>Depending on which country you have lived in that is totally debatable.
Al Gore is not the Second Coming.
>>>No but he is a good person for being very forth-coming!
Mars is warming. Man/the USA/CO2 didn't cause it.
>>>That would be the Sun, our culprit as well, but for different reasons.
Egocentrism is a sign of immaturity.
>>>Thats right, and those ego driven basturds who think "we din't do nuthin' wrong" are required by morality to think again, before doing more nothing.
The USA did not cause terrorism.
Al Gore is not the Second Coming.
Mars is warming. Man/the USA/CO2 didn't cause it.
Egocentrism is a sign of immaturity.
Grow up.
Nature has come to a point where now, unless you take individual responsibility, you cannot grow. More than this nature cannot do. It has done enough. It has given you life, it has given you opportunity; now how to use it, it has left up to you.
The USA did not cause terrorism.
>>>Depending on which country you have lived in that is totally debatable.
Al Gore is not the Second Coming.
>>>No but he is a good person for being very forth-coming!
Mars is warming. Man/the USA/CO2 didn't cause it.
>>>That would be the Sun, our culprit as well, but for different reasons.
Egocentrism is a sign of immaturity.
>>>Thats right, and those ego driven basturds who think "we din't do nuthin' wrong" are required by morality to think again, before doing more nothing.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 21 2007, 12:57 AM)
The CON JOB is to go from fires to Burning TREES.
Sheesh.
Lets see one fire per person (can't we share?)
For the few minutes it takes to cook a meal each day.
Works out to one small fire per every ~ 840,000 sq ft. of the earth's surface or roughly one fire per every three football fields worth of space.
Yeah, I can feel the heat.
NOT.
Arthur
one small fire? three meals a day, repeat-Daily - ad infinitum and according to you all of that heat goes where?
Plus all of the rest of the heating sources, cars driving equals how many fires? everyday, to and from work, plus the meal....Hummmm
........and your calculation is that based upon the entire earths surface or did you subtract the water 70% coverage as it needed to be subtracted?
Aside from that the fires aren't distributed evenly and equally all over the planets face as you would, using math, try to fool me into believing, and that part counts too.
The example of 6.5 billion burning trees is simply to elucidate the problem for the mind, but apparently not for you, O.K. (I)'ll be more careful.
Sheesh.
Lets see one fire per person (can't we share?)
For the few minutes it takes to cook a meal each day.
Works out to one small fire per every ~ 840,000 sq ft. of the earth's surface or roughly one fire per every three football fields worth of space.
Yeah, I can feel the heat.
NOT.
Arthur
one small fire? three meals a day, repeat-Daily - ad infinitum and according to you all of that heat goes where?
Plus all of the rest of the heating sources, cars driving equals how many fires? everyday, to and from work, plus the meal....Hummmm
........and your calculation is that based upon the entire earths surface or did you subtract the water 70% coverage as it needed to be subtracted?
Aside from that the fires aren't distributed evenly and equally all over the planets face as you would, using math, try to fool me into believing, and that part counts too.
The example of 6.5 billion burning trees is simply to elucidate the problem for the mind, but apparently not for you, O.K. (I)'ll be more careful.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 20 2007, 02:43 PM)
So what you really have is JUST ONE of the 4 groups that make up the IPCC that is involved with the SCIENTIFIC BASIS for Global Warming (note THEY have now dropped Global Warming and only refer to Climate Change)
IPCC refers to global warming now as "Climate Change"....it must sound less loaded.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Mar 20 2007, 06:18 PM)
one small fire? three meals a day, repeat-Daily - ad infinitum and according to you all of that heat goes where?
Plus all of the rest of the heating sources, cars driving equals how many fires? everyday, to and from work, plus the meal....Hummmm
........and your calculation is that based upon the entire earths surface or did you subtract the water 70% coverage as it needed to be subtracted?
Aside from that the fires aren't distributed evenly and equally all over the planets face as you would, using math, try to fool me into believing, and that part counts too.
The example of 6.5 billion burning trees is simply to elucidate the problem for the mind, but apparently not for you, O.K. (I)'ll be more careful.
hmmm I dont think I am cooking enough! Three times a day people actually use cooking fires, what are you cave men?
But seriously...I probably cook once a day, having two meals a day that consist of of cereals & fruit maybe toast and fruit (does a toaster count)?, micro~waved soups and sometimes sandwiches at lunch and similar things...avacados and chips, salsas and the like cheeses and other dairy products....who cooks three meals a day anymore, most young people dont even know how to cook in America anymore...they have succumbed to take out and the sorts of meals that dont require fire. Microwave is exempt right?
I am finally learning to microwave foods, not just heat up my coffee!
Is it going to give us cancer?
Now the kiddies need to learn to use the stove and catch up to people who cook three meals a day!
People in there kitchens are probably not the cause of global warmming and dimming, or CLIMATE CHANGE.
Burning trees is probably not the problem either....but manufacturing is the problem and BIG BUSINESS has done some damage to the CLIMATE, dispute the amounts of damage... but not the fact that it's been Man, who dunnit.
Plus all of the rest of the heating sources, cars driving equals how many fires? everyday, to and from work, plus the meal....Hummmm
........and your calculation is that based upon the entire earths surface or did you subtract the water 70% coverage as it needed to be subtracted?
Aside from that the fires aren't distributed evenly and equally all over the planets face as you would, using math, try to fool me into believing, and that part counts too.
The example of 6.5 billion burning trees is simply to elucidate the problem for the mind, but apparently not for you, O.K. (I)'ll be more careful.
hmmm I dont think I am cooking enough! Three times a day people actually use cooking fires, what are you cave men?
But seriously...I probably cook once a day, having two meals a day that consist of of cereals & fruit maybe toast and fruit (does a toaster count)?, micro~waved soups and sometimes sandwiches at lunch and similar things...avacados and chips, salsas and the like cheeses and other dairy products....who cooks three meals a day anymore, most young people dont even know how to cook in America anymore...they have succumbed to take out and the sorts of meals that dont require fire. Microwave is exempt right?
I am finally learning to microwave foods, not just heat up my coffee!
Is it going to give us cancer?
Now the kiddies need to learn to use the stove and catch up to people who cook three meals a day!
People in there kitchens are probably not the cause of global warmming and dimming, or CLIMATE CHANGE.
Burning trees is probably not the problem either....but manufacturing is the problem and BIG BUSINESS has done some damage to the CLIMATE, dispute the amounts of damage... but not the fact that it's been Man, who dunnit.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Mar 20 2007, 08:18 PM)
one small fire? three meals a day, repeat-Daily - ad infinitum and according to you all of that heat goes where?
Plus all of the rest of the heating sources, cars driving equals how many fires? everyday, to and from work, plus the meal....Hummmm
........and your calculation is that based upon the entire earths surface or did you subtract the water 70% coverage as it needed to be subtracted?
Aside from that the fires aren't distributed evenly and equally all over the planets face as you would, using math, try to fool me into believing, and that part counts too.
The example of 6.5 billion burning trees is simply to elucidate the problem for the mind, but apparently not for you, O.K. (I)'ll be more careful.
Nope, just trying to point out that silly analogies like you made up are just that.
SILLY.
Debate the FACTS, don't just make up any old BS and then try to pass it off as Science.
Arthur
Plus all of the rest of the heating sources, cars driving equals how many fires? everyday, to and from work, plus the meal....Hummmm
........and your calculation is that based upon the entire earths surface or did you subtract the water 70% coverage as it needed to be subtracted?
Aside from that the fires aren't distributed evenly and equally all over the planets face as you would, using math, try to fool me into believing, and that part counts too.
The example of 6.5 billion burning trees is simply to elucidate the problem for the mind, but apparently not for you, O.K. (I)'ll be more careful.
Nope, just trying to point out that silly analogies like you made up are just that.
SILLY.
Debate the FACTS, don't just make up any old BS and then try to pass it off as Science.
Arthur
QUOTE (tikay+Mar 21 2007, 01:32 AM)
hmmm I dont think I am cooking enough! Three times a day people actually use cooking fires, what are you cave men?
But seriously...I probably cook once a day, having two meals a day that consist of of cereals & fruit maybe toast and fruit (does a toaster count)?, micro~waved soups and sometimes sandwiches at lunch and similar things...avacados and chips, salsas and the like cheeses and other dairy products....who cooks three meals a day anymore, most young people dont even know how to cook in America anymore...they have succumbed to take out and the sorts of meals that dont require fire. Microwave is exempt right?
I am finally learning to microwave foods, not just heat up my coffee!
Is it going to give us cancer?
Now the kiddies need to learn to use the stove and catch up to people who cook three meals a day!
People in there kitchens are probably not the cause of global warmming and dimming, or CLIMATE CHANGE.
Burning trees is probably not the problem either....but manufacturing is the problem and BIG BUSINESS has done some damage to the CLIMATE, dispute the amounts of damage... but not the fact that it's been Man, who dunnit.
Your post seems more a diversion from the reality.
All of what you mention requires heat, to make and then bake, so where is your defense?
Your seeming assumption that, because you nuke your food that, ergo: everyone on the planet does, is spurious, even if you limit it to the U.S. only.
Only three meals a day, is that why better then 50% of American are so overweight? Limited diets?
As (I) started out with (that no one has yet addressed) if you can generate enough pollution to obfuscate your horizon line don't-can't you realize that all of the heat that created all of that pollution doesn't simply dis-appear?
Anyone willing to address that Point?
And please (I) am not interested in your diet.
But seriously...I probably cook once a day, having two meals a day that consist of of cereals & fruit maybe toast and fruit (does a toaster count)?, micro~waved soups and sometimes sandwiches at lunch and similar things...avacados and chips, salsas and the like cheeses and other dairy products....who cooks three meals a day anymore, most young people dont even know how to cook in America anymore...they have succumbed to take out and the sorts of meals that dont require fire. Microwave is exempt right?
I am finally learning to microwave foods, not just heat up my coffee!
Is it going to give us cancer?
Now the kiddies need to learn to use the stove and catch up to people who cook three meals a day!
People in there kitchens are probably not the cause of global warmming and dimming, or CLIMATE CHANGE.
Burning trees is probably not the problem either....but manufacturing is the problem and BIG BUSINESS has done some damage to the CLIMATE, dispute the amounts of damage... but not the fact that it's been Man, who dunnit.
Your post seems more a diversion from the reality.
All of what you mention requires heat, to make and then bake, so where is your defense?
Your seeming assumption that, because you nuke your food that, ergo: everyone on the planet does, is spurious, even if you limit it to the U.S. only.
Only three meals a day, is that why better then 50% of American are so overweight? Limited diets?
As (I) started out with (that no one has yet addressed) if you can generate enough pollution to obfuscate your horizon line don't-can't you realize that all of the heat that created all of that pollution doesn't simply dis-appear?
Anyone willing to address that Point?
And please (I) am not interested in your diet.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 21 2007, 02:48 AM)
Nope, just trying to point out that silly analogies like you made up are just that.
SILLY.
Debate the FACTS, don't just make up any old BS and then try to pass it off as Science.
Arthur
So your analogy that explains in simple terms just how much heat is being released on a daily basis is .....where?
Making up BS? where does that false accusation come from?
You don't or can't figure out that the amount of heat that is used daily is equal to the burning of a certain number of trees everyday? that is too difficult for you? or to what? Silly? how is it Silly??
What is silly about it? 'simple' Yes, but silly??
BTW can you show me where (I) made Up anything?
from this site: dictionary.reference.com/browse/silly
this definition: "weak-minded or lacking good sense; stupid or foolish"
So please explain to me how making an analogy of the quantity of heat released daily is equivalent to the burning of a certain number of trees everyday, is anything-anyway related to the definition of "silly" above.
Preferable in a PM as you are leading this Waaaay off the topic with your personal comment/opinion
A rather rude response, actually
SILLY.
Debate the FACTS, don't just make up any old BS and then try to pass it off as Science.
Arthur
So your analogy that explains in simple terms just how much heat is being released on a daily basis is .....where?
Making up BS? where does that false accusation come from?
You don't or can't figure out that the amount of heat that is used daily is equal to the burning of a certain number of trees everyday? that is too difficult for you? or to what? Silly? how is it Silly??
What is silly about it? 'simple' Yes, but silly??
BTW can you show me where (I) made Up anything?
from this site: dictionary.reference.com/browse/silly
this definition: "weak-minded or lacking good sense; stupid or foolish"
So please explain to me how making an analogy of the quantity of heat released daily is equivalent to the burning of a certain number of trees everyday, is anything-anyway related to the definition of "silly" above.
Preferable in a PM as you are leading this Waaaay off the topic with your personal comment/opinion
A rather rude response, actually
COSMIC UNIVERSE
Cosmic influence on the Earth and its environment should be studied in details. It is essential to understand the influence of the changed Electro flux and magnetic flux on Sun-earth environment. Sudden changes in Thermo sphere-Ionosphere-Atmosphere-Geo sphere are influenced by cosmic factors.
Dr.Saumitra Mukherjee
Associate Professor
School of Environmental Sciences
Jawaharlal Nehru University
New Delhi-110067
INDIA
Email: dr.saumitramukherjee@usa.net
Cosmic influence on the Earth and its environment should be studied in details. It is essential to understand the influence of the changed Electro flux and magnetic flux on Sun-earth environment. Sudden changes in Thermo sphere-Ionosphere-Atmosphere-Geo sphere are influenced by cosmic factors.
Dr.Saumitra Mukherjee
Associate Professor
School of Environmental Sciences
Jawaharlal Nehru University
New Delhi-110067
INDIA
Email: dr.saumitramukherjee@usa.net
OldWoman1904. The top people in their fields. Does it matter where they come from?
Sure scientists are sometimes wrong but a concensus of 2,500?
Ice Age in the 60's. That was dropped in the 70's when things started getting hotter.
If only. Bikes produce very little power. Enough to power a 100w light bulb as long as you keep peddling.
Sure scientists are sometimes wrong but a concensus of 2,500?
Ice Age in the 60's. That was dropped in the 70's when things started getting hotter.
If only. Bikes produce very little power. Enough to power a 100w light bulb as long as you keep peddling.
Michael Tulloch. Provably the US did cause terrorism.
9/11 happened because they have soldiers in Saudi Arabia and refused to remove them.
Saddam Hussein wanted nothing to do with Al Qaeda but because of the Americans, Iraqi people have been driven into the arms of Al Qaeda. That is accepted as a fact, even by Americans. The civil war that causes the deaths of an average of 100 Iraqi people every day was caused by an illegal invasion of Iraq by who?
And Pluto is cooling. Your point is....?
9/11 happened because they have soldiers in Saudi Arabia and refused to remove them.
Saddam Hussein wanted nothing to do with Al Qaeda but because of the Americans, Iraqi people have been driven into the arms of Al Qaeda. That is accepted as a fact, even by Americans. The civil war that causes the deaths of an average of 100 Iraqi people every day was caused by an illegal invasion of Iraq by who?
And Pluto is cooling. Your point is....?
adoucette. You calling me a liar?
I quoted the figures given by the world's news agencies. The people you list are just the top of each pyramid. Since like Humpty Dumpty what you say is true and everything else false, I'll settle for the opposite of what you say. I wouldn't like to think the same as you. I prefer to tell the truth.
Isn't it about time you told the climate scientists of the world why they are all idiots and how they got it so badly wrong? Or do you just enjoy playing a crank on this board?
I quoted the figures given by the world's news agencies. The people you list are just the top of each pyramid. Since like Humpty Dumpty what you say is true and everything else false, I'll settle for the opposite of what you say. I wouldn't like to think the same as you. I prefer to tell the truth.
Isn't it about time you told the climate scientists of the world why they are all idiots and how they got it so badly wrong? Or do you just enjoy playing a crank on this board?
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 21 2007, 03:48 AM)
Debate the FACTS, don't just make up any old BS and then try to pass it off as Science.
Arthur
hypocrisy!
Arthur
hypocrisy!
saumitra. With so many satellites in space providing TV channels, phone services, GPS systems, monitoring the weather, etc it is important that scientists do know what is going on in space near the earth and on the sun since these satellites can easily be damaged or their information ruined.
I think these factors would have been taken into account when considering climate change.
I think these factors would have been taken into account when considering climate change.
QUOTE (kaneda+Mar 21 2007, 08:16 AM)
I quoted the figures given by the world's news agencies. The people you list are just the top of each pyramid.
Yeah, news agencies always get it right.
The papers are quoting how many people are part of the IPCC, but it turns out, that not all of them are CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, in fact as I showed only one out of their 4 groups is concerned with the SCIENCE behind global warming.
As to the pyramid, the first two people listed are the LEAD AUTHORS for the chapters, the ones below it are the working group.
Certainly they rely on work (papers, studies etc) from other scientists, but the REALITY is the IPCC report is the work of a relatively small and ever more highly SELF SELECTED group.
Over the years I've watched as those SCIENTISTS with contrary views DON'T GET INVITED BACK or, as in the case of scientists like Chris Landsea, opt out because they don't want their work politicized.
Arthur
Yeah, news agencies always get it right.
The papers are quoting how many people are part of the IPCC, but it turns out, that not all of them are CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, in fact as I showed only one out of their 4 groups is concerned with the SCIENCE behind global warming.
As to the pyramid, the first two people listed are the LEAD AUTHORS for the chapters, the ones below it are the working group.
Certainly they rely on work (papers, studies etc) from other scientists, but the REALITY is the IPCC report is the work of a relatively small and ever more highly SELF SELECTED group.
Over the years I've watched as those SCIENTISTS with contrary views DON'T GET INVITED BACK or, as in the case of scientists like Chris Landsea, opt out because they don't want their work politicized.
Arthur
The USA did not cause terrorism.
>>>Depending on which country you have lived in that is totally debatable.
If you actually believe the USA causes terrorism then I suggest you renounce your US citizenship and go to a country that shares your beliefs. terrorism is not based upon OPINION rather upon observable behavior.
Al Gore is not the Second Coming.
>>>No but he is a good person for being very forth-coming!
Fourth-coming at spreading half truths and lies. That's a really good person? Perhaps you should reconsider your values (see comment above). Also see Gore's behavior in todays hearings.
Mars is warming. Man/the USA/CO2 didn't cause it.
>>>That would be the Sun, our culprit as well, but for different reasons.
Lets see, the sun has recently increased the warming of Mars but the warming of earth is some how different?
Egocentrism is a sign of immaturity.
>>>Thats right, and those ego driven basturds who think "we din't do nuthin' wrong" are required by morality to think again, before doing more nothing.
I had no idea that "morality" was an independent agent making requirements...
Perhaps one should considering that doing something WRONG isn't a good idea.
Since Al Gore is a politician and not a scientist, perhaps the proper response to his, and apparently your, ideology is to counter with the views of another politician.
To wit:
"Czech President Vaclav Klaus said on Wednesday that fighting global warming has turned into a a 'religion' that replaced the ideology of communism and threatens to clip basic freedoms." .signonsandiego.com/news/world/20070321-0538-czech-environment-. articel
Further, the only ego driven "basturds" (sic) are those people who have the ego to believe that humans are more powerful than natural forces at a global scale. A typical belief of the immature. "I caused mommy's divorce", "I broke the network", etc. Children are also prone to hysterical behavior when they don't get their way - sound familiar?
>>>Depending on which country you have lived in that is totally debatable.
If you actually believe the USA causes terrorism then I suggest you renounce your US citizenship and go to a country that shares your beliefs. terrorism is not based upon OPINION rather upon observable behavior.
Al Gore is not the Second Coming.
>>>No but he is a good person for being very forth-coming!
Fourth-coming at spreading half truths and lies. That's a really good person? Perhaps you should reconsider your values (see comment above). Also see Gore's behavior in todays hearings.
Mars is warming. Man/the USA/CO2 didn't cause it.
>>>That would be the Sun, our culprit as well, but for different reasons.
Lets see, the sun has recently increased the warming of Mars but the warming of earth is some how different?
Egocentrism is a sign of immaturity.
>>>Thats right, and those ego driven basturds who think "we din't do nuthin' wrong" are required by morality to think again, before doing more nothing.
I had no idea that "morality" was an independent agent making requirements...
Perhaps one should considering that doing something WRONG isn't a good idea.
Since Al Gore is a politician and not a scientist, perhaps the proper response to his, and apparently your, ideology is to counter with the views of another politician.
To wit:
"Czech President Vaclav Klaus said on Wednesday that fighting global warming has turned into a a 'religion' that replaced the ideology of communism and threatens to clip basic freedoms." .signonsandiego.com/news/world/20070321-0538-czech-environment-. articel
Further, the only ego driven "basturds" (sic) are those people who have the ego to believe that humans are more powerful than natural forces at a global scale. A typical belief of the immature. "I caused mommy's divorce", "I broke the network", etc. Children are also prone to hysterical behavior when they don't get their way - sound familiar?
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Mar 21 2007, 04:28 AM)
Your post seems more a diversion from the reality.
All of what you mention requires heat, to make and then bake, so where is your defense?
Your seeming assumption that, because you nuke your food that, ergo: everyone on the planet does, is spurious, even if you limit it to the U.S. only.
Only three meals a day, is that why better then 50% of American are so overweight? Limited diets?
As (I) started out with (that no one has yet addressed) if you can generate enough pollution to obfuscate your horizon line don't-can't you realize that all of the heat that created all of that pollution doesn't simply dis-appear?
Anyone willing to address that Point?
And please (I) am not interested in your diet.
I was merely explaining that these sorts of foods many Americans are prone to eat do not require cooking fires. I am interested in how you are so angry but...that is just me, I bet no one else in here cares at all.
Most people I know eat three times a day or less. We are not the overweight sort.
All of what you mention requires heat, to make and then bake, so where is your defense?
Your seeming assumption that, because you nuke your food that, ergo: everyone on the planet does, is spurious, even if you limit it to the U.S. only.
Only three meals a day, is that why better then 50% of American are so overweight? Limited diets?
As (I) started out with (that no one has yet addressed) if you can generate enough pollution to obfuscate your horizon line don't-can't you realize that all of the heat that created all of that pollution doesn't simply dis-appear?
Anyone willing to address that Point?
And please (I) am not interested in your diet.
I was merely explaining that these sorts of foods many Americans are prone to eat do not require cooking fires. I am interested in how you are so angry but...that is just me, I bet no one else in here cares at all.
Most people I know eat three times a day or less. We are not the overweight sort.
QUOTE (kaneda+Mar 21 2007, 06:11 AM)
Michael Tulloch. Provably the US did cause terrorism.
9/11 happened because they have soldiers in Saudi Arabia and refused to remove them.
Saddam Hussein wanted nothing to do with Al Qaeda but because of the Americans, Iraqi people have been driven into the arms of Al Qaeda. That is accepted as a fact, even by Americans. The civil war that causes the deaths of an average of 100 Iraqi people every day was caused by an illegal invasion of Iraq by who?
And Pluto is cooling. Your point is....?
Thank You!
9/11 happened because they have soldiers in Saudi Arabia and refused to remove them.
Saddam Hussein wanted nothing to do with Al Qaeda but because of the Americans, Iraqi people have been driven into the arms of Al Qaeda. That is accepted as a fact, even by Americans. The civil war that causes the deaths of an average of 100 Iraqi people every day was caused by an illegal invasion of Iraq by who?
And Pluto is cooling. Your point is....?
Thank You!
QUOTE (Michael Tulloch+Mar 21 2007, 10:33 AM)
The USA did not cause terrorism.
>>>Depending on which country you have lived in that is totally debatable.
If you actually believe the USA causes terrorism then I suggest you renounce your US citizenship and go to a country that shares your beliefs. terrorism is not based upon OPINION rather upon observable behavior.
Al Gore is not the Second Coming.
>>>No but he is a good person for being very forth-coming!
Fourth-coming at spreading half truths and lies. That's a really good person? Perhaps you should reconsider your values (see comment above). Also see Gore's behavior in todays hearings.
Mars is warming. Man/the USA/CO2 didn't cause it.
>>>That would be the Sun, our culprit as well, but for different reasons.
Lets see, the sun has recently increased the warming of Mars but the warming of earth is some how different?
Egocentrism is a sign of immaturity.
>>>Thats right, and those ego driven basturds who think "we din't do nuthin' wrong" are required by morality to think again, before doing more nothing.
I had no idea that "morality" was an independent agent making requirements...
Perhaps one should considering that doing something WRONG isn't a good idea.
Since Al Gore is a politician and not a scientist, perhaps the proper response to his, and apparently your, ideology is to counter with the views of another politician.
To wit:
"Czech President Vaclav Klaus said on Wednesday that fighting global warming has turned into a a 'religion' that replaced the ideology of communism and threatens to clip basic freedoms." .signonsandiego.com/news/world/20070321-0538-czech-environment-. articel
Further, the only ego driven "basturds" (sic) are those people who have the ego to believe that humans are more powerful than natural forces at a global scale. A typical belief of the immature. "I caused mommy's divorce", "I broke the network", etc. Children are also prone to hysterical behavior when they don't get their way - sound familiar?
OOOooops didn't want another angry debate just giving feedback, in the form of opinion. Yep.
I dont care to play with you, you'r a bit rough around the edges for me.
I would love to live elsewhere though, I have longed for this from early childhood!
I like Italy, Spain, Norway, Switzerland....so many places I would probably rather live.
"I've been to Chatsworth, Santa Cruz, Encino, San Diego, Riverside, Van Nuys, and Bakersfield. It has been eight months! Where are my goddamn clouds, huh?"
Howard Hughes (the aviator)
P.S.
sic is like this [sic] fyi and if one spells it correctly, you get this ****
>>>Depending on which country you have lived in that is totally debatable.
If you actually believe the USA causes terrorism then I suggest you renounce your US citizenship and go to a country that shares your beliefs. terrorism is not based upon OPINION rather upon observable behavior.
Al Gore is not the Second Coming.
>>>No but he is a good person for being very forth-coming!
Fourth-coming at spreading half truths and lies. That's a really good person? Perhaps you should reconsider your values (see comment above). Also see Gore's behavior in todays hearings.
Mars is warming. Man/the USA/CO2 didn't cause it.
>>>That would be the Sun, our culprit as well, but for different reasons.
Lets see, the sun has recently increased the warming of Mars but the warming of earth is some how different?
Egocentrism is a sign of immaturity.
>>>Thats right, and those ego driven basturds who think "we din't do nuthin' wrong" are required by morality to think again, before doing more nothing.
I had no idea that "morality" was an independent agent making requirements...
Perhaps one should considering that doing something WRONG isn't a good idea.
Since Al Gore is a politician and not a scientist, perhaps the proper response to his, and apparently your, ideology is to counter with the views of another politician.
To wit:
"Czech President Vaclav Klaus said on Wednesday that fighting global warming has turned into a a 'religion' that replaced the ideology of communism and threatens to clip basic freedoms." .signonsandiego.com/news/world/20070321-0538-czech-environment-. articel
Further, the only ego driven "basturds" (sic) are those people who have the ego to believe that humans are more powerful than natural forces at a global scale. A typical belief of the immature. "I caused mommy's divorce", "I broke the network", etc. Children are also prone to hysterical behavior when they don't get their way - sound familiar?
OOOooops didn't want another angry debate just giving feedback, in the form of opinion. Yep.
I dont care to play with you, you'r a bit rough around the edges for me.
I would love to live elsewhere though, I have longed for this from early childhood!
I like Italy, Spain, Norway, Switzerland....so many places I would probably rather live.
"I've been to Chatsworth, Santa Cruz, Encino, San Diego, Riverside, Van Nuys, and Bakersfield. It has been eight months! Where are my goddamn clouds, huh?"
Howard Hughes (the aviator)
P.S.
sic is like this [sic] fyi and if one spells it correctly, you get this ****
QUOTE (tikay+Mar 23 2007, 01:59 AM)
P.S.
sic is like this [sic] fyi and if one spells it correctly, you get this ****
Thanks for the laugh this morning.
Arthur
sic is like this [sic] fyi and if one spells it correctly, you get this ****
Thanks for the laugh this morning.
Arthur
QUOTE (tikay+Mar 23 2007, 06:38 AM)
I was merely explaining that these sorts of foods many Americans are prone to eat do not require cooking fires. I am interested in how you are so angry but...that is just me, I bet no one else in here cares at all.
Most people I know eat three times a day or less. We are not the overweight sort.
Where do you find anger (
) in what (I) posted?
So microwave overns don't use any green house gas producing energy sources, Huh? ...not so....
Anyways this is where (I) started so (I)'ll continue form there.....
Had an Uncle who, as an Observer on the Field of Battle, told me of the sensation of the sucking air that he knew was flowing towards the light on the horizon that he could see, as the city of Dresden Burned from an allied Fire Bombing.
The amount of fuel that that many trees represents, (6.5 Billion) is a bigger pile burning.
So, how often are we adding into the natural systems normal activity?
Because all 'we' are doing is, adding in.....
Cosmic rays are neat, if you don't have cloud cover they make water vapor, (Speedier evaporation) if you have cloud cover, they cause rain. (Speedier condensation)
Add that in too?
If we do the trees at one square foot per tree, that is 6.5x10^9 sq feet, or roughly 233 Square miles of wood, at fifty feet high.
(Est. ~50 cubic feet of wood per tree)
Back in 1990 here was a tire fire at Haggersville here in Ontario, a much smaller number of "fuel pellets" 12 - 14 Million tires, and noted that the smoke plume could be seen as far away as Cleveland Ohio.
So if you were to light on fire 6.5 billion trees, the plume would rise through the atmosphere and either, bring particulate with it into the stratosphere as to block the Sun, or it would simply heat the Stratosphere.
Never mind the reality that this kind of fire would burn for a long time, possibly months, sucking in all of the air around it as to keep itself fed for oxygen. That makes what we are dong just a little bit more obvious and the FACT that it has Global Affectations to it
Seemingly, some people think that by spreading this quantity of heating around 'all over the place' that it therefore impacts less, which would appear to make sense except that, what it does then is hang around the lower atmosphere Longer ....and ends up warming the 'soon to be rain' that is the circulating Water vapor in the lower atmosphere, that, in turn, falls back down to Earth and resultantly, slowly over time, raises the water temperature of the Moderator of the planets' temperature.
After that, heating a gas causes that gas to move more quickly, ergo wind speeds at ground level increase over time.
As the rest of the Atmosphere rides upon the lower one, well changing the speed of the mixing at the lower levels is bound to have consequences.
So Go Nuke? well, nukes also need a fresh water source and are thermal polluters as they release the "waste water" back out to the natural systems at a temperature fairly higher then what they took in....and lots of it too.
A fire that size is equivalent to a Volcano, and this one is continuously erupting, spewing gases and Heat.
The heat escapes as per the natural routes that thermicity has been escaping this planet since it began as a planet, but we are ADDING to the natural background Heating.
That is where science runs into trouble as we do not know enough to know if that is going to be of minor consequence or major consequence but we need to know, and more importantly most scientific experimentation is carried out to the resultant end, then it is decided whether or not what was sought was achieved or learned, this is one place wherein we cannot act like this is a scientific experiment as by the result time it could easily be waaaaay to late.
Frog Soup.
Mitigate now!
Most people I know eat three times a day or less. We are not the overweight sort.
Where do you find anger (
) in what (I) posted?So microwave overns don't use any green house gas producing energy sources, Huh? ...not so....
Anyways this is where (I) started so (I)'ll continue form there.....
Had an Uncle who, as an Observer on the Field of Battle, told me of the sensation of the sucking air that he knew was flowing towards the light on the horizon that he could see, as the city of Dresden Burned from an allied Fire Bombing.
The amount of fuel that that many trees represents, (6.5 Billion) is a bigger pile burning.
So, how often are we adding into the natural systems normal activity?
Because all 'we' are doing is, adding in.....
Cosmic rays are neat, if you don't have cloud cover they make water vapor, (Speedier evaporation) if you have cloud cover, they cause rain. (Speedier condensation)
Add that in too?
If we do the trees at one square foot per tree, that is 6.5x10^9 sq feet, or roughly 233 Square miles of wood, at fifty feet high.
(Est. ~50 cubic feet of wood per tree)
Back in 1990 here was a tire fire at Haggersville here in Ontario, a much smaller number of "fuel pellets" 12 - 14 Million tires, and noted that the smoke plume could be seen as far away as Cleveland Ohio.
So if you were to light on fire 6.5 billion trees, the plume would rise through the atmosphere and either, bring particulate with it into the stratosphere as to block the Sun, or it would simply heat the Stratosphere.
Never mind the reality that this kind of fire would burn for a long time, possibly months, sucking in all of the air around it as to keep itself fed for oxygen. That makes what we are dong just a little bit more obvious and the FACT that it has Global Affectations to it
Seemingly, some people think that by spreading this quantity of heating around 'all over the place' that it therefore impacts less, which would appear to make sense except that, what it does then is hang around the lower atmosphere Longer ....and ends up warming the 'soon to be rain' that is the circulating Water vapor in the lower atmosphere, that, in turn, falls back down to Earth and resultantly, slowly over time, raises the water temperature of the Moderator of the planets' temperature.
After that, heating a gas causes that gas to move more quickly, ergo wind speeds at ground level increase over time.
As the rest of the Atmosphere rides upon the lower one, well changing the speed of the mixing at the lower levels is bound to have consequences.
So Go Nuke? well, nukes also need a fresh water source and are thermal polluters as they release the "waste water" back out to the natural systems at a temperature fairly higher then what they took in....and lots of it too.
A fire that size is equivalent to a Volcano, and this one is continuously erupting, spewing gases and Heat.
The heat escapes as per the natural routes that thermicity has been escaping this planet since it began as a planet, but we are ADDING to the natural background Heating.
That is where science runs into trouble as we do not know enough to know if that is going to be of minor consequence or major consequence but we need to know, and more importantly most scientific experimentation is carried out to the resultant end, then it is decided whether or not what was sought was achieved or learned, this is one place wherein we cannot act like this is a scientific experiment as by the result time it could easily be waaaaay to late.
Frog Soup.
Mitigate now!
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Mar 23 2007, 04:54 PM)
That is where science runs into trouble as we do not know enough to know if that is going to be of minor consequence or major consequence but we need to know, and more importantly most scientific experimentation is carried out to the resultant end, then it is decided whether or not what was sought was achieved or learned, this is one place wherein we cannot act like this is a scientific experiment as by the result time it could easily be waaaaay to late.
READY
FIRE
AIM
Arthur
READY
FIRE
AIM
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 24 2007, 12:18 AM)
READY
FIRE
AIM
Arthur
Is this your response?
Or simply an expression of your apathy towards the topic?
If so, why are you posting?
Or are you advocating accelerating the efforts of Humankind to heat up the Planet?
Seems as a rather juvenile response, to me.
The effort of one who sees that they are not succeeding, so they attempt to divert attention.
FIRE
AIM
Arthur
Is this your response?
Or simply an expression of your apathy towards the topic?
If so, why are you posting?
Or are you advocating accelerating the efforts of Humankind to heat up the Planet?
Seems as a rather juvenile response, to me.
The effort of one who sees that they are not succeeding, so they attempt to divert attention.
No, its an expression of what you apparently want to do.
You say
You say
QUOTE (RP+)
we do not know enough to know if that is going to be of minor consequence or major consequence
But, even NOT KNOWING, you want to RESTRICT ENERGY USE as if that has NO CONSEQUENCE.
That and the fact that I have trouble taking anyone who thinks the important issue with Nuclear Power plants is the WASTE HEAT, seriously.
Arthur
But, even NOT KNOWING, you want to RESTRICT ENERGY USE as if that has NO CONSEQUENCE.
That and the fact that I have trouble taking anyone who thinks the important issue with Nuclear Power plants is the WASTE HEAT, seriously.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+)
No, its an expression of what you apparently want to do.
You sayQUOTE (RP) we do not know enough to know if that is going to be of minor consequence or major consequence
But, even NOT KNOWING, you want to RESTRICT ENERGY USE as if that has NO CONSEQUENCE.
That and the fact that I have trouble taking anyone who thinks the important issue with Nuclear Power plants is the WASTE HEAT, seriously.
Arthur
Thats funny!
So all of the pollution that is associated with all of that burning of fossil fuels etc, the FACT that the horizon line in the United States of America is disappearing from your view in the Pollutant haze, this means nothing to you? and we should make NO efforts to stop that right? (Wrong!)
And that ties right into global warming and an amazingly valid reason to do something about it....now....
The important issue with nuclear power plants is the radioactive waste, but the heating issue simply ADDS IN to the rest of the problems we, collectively (Includes you too) are facing.
That you would have 'trouble' with taking that 'seriously' well, not my problem, .....yours.
You sayQUOTE (RP) we do not know enough to know if that is going to be of minor consequence or major consequence
But, even NOT KNOWING, you want to RESTRICT ENERGY USE as if that has NO CONSEQUENCE.
That and the fact that I have trouble taking anyone who thinks the important issue with Nuclear Power plants is the WASTE HEAT, seriously.
Arthur
Thats funny!
So all of the pollution that is associated with all of that burning of fossil fuels etc, the FACT that the horizon line in the United States of America is disappearing from your view in the Pollutant haze, this means nothing to you? and we should make NO efforts to stop that right? (Wrong!)
And that ties right into global warming and an amazingly valid reason to do something about it....now....
The important issue with nuclear power plants is the radioactive waste, but the heating issue simply ADDS IN to the rest of the problems we, collectively (Includes you too) are facing.
That you would have 'trouble' with taking that 'seriously' well, not my problem, .....yours.
No, I said I had trouble taking YOU seriously when your only issue (in that post) with Nuclear Power was the friggin WASTE HEAT.
But though that was good for a LAUGH, let's cut to the chase:
What do you suggest we do, since as you say, "we can't wait".
In your answer please address these specific issues:
Role of Nuclear Power
Role of Coal
Role of TAXES on:
OIL?
Gasoline?
Natural Gas?
Aviation Fuel?
Carbon TAX a la Kyoto?
Arthur
But though that was good for a LAUGH, let's cut to the chase:
What do you suggest we do, since as you say, "we can't wait".
In your answer please address these specific issues:
Role of Nuclear Power
Role of Coal
Role of TAXES on:
OIL?
Gasoline?
Natural Gas?
Aviation Fuel?
Carbon TAX a la Kyoto?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 24 2007, 01:49 PM)
No, I said I had trouble taking YOU seriously when your only issue (in that post) with Nuclear Power was the friggin WASTE HEAT.
But though that was good for a LAUGH, let's cut to the chase:
What do you suggest we do, since as you say, "we can't wait".
In your answer please address these specific issues:
Role of Nuclear Power Role of Coal Role of TAXES on: OIL? Gasoline? Natural Gas? Aviation Fuel? Carbon TAX a la Kyoto? Arthur
The waste heat is simply Another 'add on' and into the natural systems, so YUP! it is a problem too.
Uhmmm the thread title seems to be "Manmade Global Warming is a con game" so the relevance of your questions escapes you.
All of what you are addressing are fuel sources, and my specific answer is that we all need to reduce our use of them, our Personal use of them because we are heating up the planets atmosphere and especially the Water (Nuke waste heat) that is the Moderator of the Planets temperature as it is renowned for it's thermal capacitance and longevity of such.
So, your point was? (oh yes Political)
But though that was good for a LAUGH, let's cut to the chase:
What do you suggest we do, since as you say, "we can't wait".
In your answer please address these specific issues:
Role of Nuclear Power Role of Coal Role of TAXES on: OIL? Gasoline? Natural Gas? Aviation Fuel? Carbon TAX a la Kyoto? Arthur
The waste heat is simply Another 'add on' and into the natural systems, so YUP! it is a problem too.
Uhmmm the thread title seems to be "Manmade Global Warming is a con game" so the relevance of your questions escapes you.
All of what you are addressing are fuel sources, and my specific answer is that we all need to reduce our use of them, our Personal use of them because we are heating up the planets atmosphere and especially the Water (Nuke waste heat) that is the Moderator of the Planets temperature as it is renowned for it's thermal capacitance and longevity of such.
So, your point was? (oh yes Political)
I know you spent a lot of time working on this solution, so thanks for sharing.
QUOTE ( Mr Robin Parsons+)
we all need to reduce our personal use of them, our Personal use of them
Arthur
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 24 2007, 04:05 PM)
I know you spent a lot of time working on this solution, so thanks for sharing.
QUOTE ( Mr Robin Parsons+)
we all need to reduce our personal use of them, our Personal use of them
Arthur
Hummm out of respect for that then, would you kindly quote me properly not repetitively as you have.
As (I) said: "we all need to reduce our use of them, our Personal use of them" not what you have quoted (it is out of context)
And BTW no not as much time as you seem to be dreaming of, as (I) have other thoughts going through my head all the time well, except when (I) am quite/silent inside.
Arthur
Hummm out of respect for that then, would you kindly quote me properly not repetitively as you have.
As (I) said: "we all need to reduce our use of them, our Personal use of them" not what you have quoted (it is out of context)
And BTW no not as much time as you seem to be dreaming of, as (I) have other thoughts going through my head all the time well, except when (I) am quite/silent inside.
Oh, my bad.
QUOTE (RP+)
"we all need to reduce our use of them, our Personal use of them"
That's SO much better.
Arthur
That's SO much better.
Arthur
I stumbled onto your conversation...
The only way present use will change is when people are forced to change, usually by economics. I wish we were a nation of ethical, reflective people but we are not.
To quote the reaction to a national nuclear waste repository, NIMBY.
We'll change because we have to, not because we want to.
The only way present use will change is when people are forced to change, usually by economics. I wish we were a nation of ethical, reflective people but we are not.
To quote the reaction to a national nuclear waste repository, NIMBY.
We'll change because we have to, not because we want to.
QUOTE (ScienceChic+Mar 24 2007, 07:40 PM)
I stumbled onto your conversation...
The only way present use will change is when people are forced to change, usually by economics. I wish we were a nation of ethical, reflective people but we are not.
To quote the reaction to a national nuclear waste repository, NIMBY.
We'll change because we have to, not because we want to.
So combining global warming and pollution should be enough to get us to change because we now have to.
Or disappear in a very hot haze.
adoucette Thank you ...even though your sense of the sarcastic is not lost on me.
The only way present use will change is when people are forced to change, usually by economics. I wish we were a nation of ethical, reflective people but we are not.
To quote the reaction to a national nuclear waste repository, NIMBY.
We'll change because we have to, not because we want to.
So combining global warming and pollution should be enough to get us to change because we now have to.
Or disappear in a very hot haze.
adoucette Thank you ...even though your sense of the sarcastic is not lost on me.
Hi All,
Don't fall for the "Spin Doctors". Global warming is for real. A single individual mind sticking its head out of doors once a day to determine if it is going to rain or not is not capable of assessing all the relevant information. The World is a very complex system and we need to share the understanding and to access "big" solutions. Compared with conventional Physics or Maths the Natural System of the World is too complex for any one mind to grasp. Luckily we have information systems capable of bringing the data into a manageable aggregate that individuals can assess. A lot of testing and checking still needs to be done but we must act very soon "or else". Some people will not accept Global Warming because like the proverbial frogs in the gradually warming bowl of water.. they will be sitting in it when it begins to boil... the only difference is they will have a channel changer in their "hands".
The media we are all watching is so "bent" that it is impossible to gain any useful information other than a "fear factor" and sense of total hopelessness. That condition sells papers and keeps our habitual watching of the idiot box "in place". These "fools" on TV are not your personal friends and they are simply responding to their "sponsorships" and will do anything that those sponsors say. Simon says leap off a cliff... will you all leap off a cliff? Survey says "Yes!".
Another group perceive that they have a livelihood that has taken them this far in life and it is far too late to change now. Maybe they work in the petrochemical industry or for a mining conglomerate that is mining for coal. Naturally they will fight to "keep what is theirs". Their families and future generations will just need to look after themselves. Just "taking care of business".
Then there is the group that can smell an upset in the markets coming and they need a certain stability to trade in shares. Their "Blue Chip" stocks and shares are all mutually dependent on a very cozy stable configuration. Like a pack of cards if one of the biggies like Exxon or a large energy Utility fails it will bring the "house" down because all the "biggies" invest in each other to maintain their mutual corporate worth.
Most of the affluent rest (including the ones above) have their motor car and they use energy produced by coal fired turbines. So every time they watch their TV Show or take a hot shower they are contributing to greenhouse gases. No alternatives are being offered by the Government and in some cases they may even penalize them using any alternatives.
So who wants to change? A few Friends of the Earth with some rather mad messianic view of the future where we go back to the stone age and disappear back into the Jungle. Not a very acceptable alternative for the rest of us. There are a few cranks and "propeller heads" who have invested heavily in a lot of very small scale "new age" gimmickry in the hope that we can all go back to this idealized past... However an acceptable reality for most is very different. The only group that actually want to change and have gone on record is the scientists. I know this will be disputed but claims by a number of small organizations to the contrary do not mean they are actually helping to do anything about it as a real problem with solutions. The Scientists do it not because it can assist them in their careers or improve their share portfolio but because the evidence is inescapable. They know that Governments do not want to hear the truth and as things get worse all that will happen is resources will be shifted from the indefensible majority to the rich and powerful minority so at least the "cream of society will survive". So don't you worry about that... nothing to see here ... move along.
So why do Scientists speak out at all even though Government is trying to shut them up by reducing resources and by altering the reports that are being released to the public? I know that most of you out there have your own private reasons and arguments. Some are slowly awakening to a problem that may appear beyond our ability to fix... I know that many are saying that but do not believe it ... we can fix it even now. The others are the problem and for one reason or another they are a majority... they need a reason for continuing to do what they do and a reason to not change. You all "know" and are responsible. It was one thing when you were "ignorant", it is not the case now and we understand what is happening. So what is the excuse now? Go face your daemons alone and please do not take the rest of us with you on your trip into an abyss.
Many solutions exist and it would not necessarily involve a return to the stone age. It will need some readjustment. You know that is inevitable and the longer you wait the greater that readjustment will be. Do not cringe in the corner of your Churches one day a week and the rest of the week it is "business as usual" waiting for Jesus or other nominated deity to save you... you do not deserve it and no true g*d has any patience for those who do nothing about their own predicament. I would also caution you all not to rely on some messianic resolution... like Jim Jones or Heaven's Gate.
We must do some of it right now and not wait that extra twenty years. There are technical solutions. People want to fight the war on terror and spend a 1/2 billion USD a day on that. How much more important is the War on the Environment that we are relentlessly waging for the last century and more. It is time to "desist" and find new ways to solve those those old problems. It is most urgent to start now because of the enormous "lag" in the system. It is vital to understand this one point. Start now. We are not the Conquerers of the Earth you have been told in Church, we are it's Stewards.
Cheers
Don't fall for the "Spin Doctors". Global warming is for real. A single individual mind sticking its head out of doors once a day to determine if it is going to rain or not is not capable of assessing all the relevant information. The World is a very complex system and we need to share the understanding and to access "big" solutions. Compared with conventional Physics or Maths the Natural System of the World is too complex for any one mind to grasp. Luckily we have information systems capable of bringing the data into a manageable aggregate that individuals can assess. A lot of testing and checking still needs to be done but we must act very soon "or else". Some people will not accept Global Warming because like the proverbial frogs in the gradually warming bowl of water.. they will be sitting in it when it begins to boil... the only difference is they will have a channel changer in their "hands".
The media we are all watching is so "bent" that it is impossible to gain any useful information other than a "fear factor" and sense of total hopelessness. That condition sells papers and keeps our habitual watching of the idiot box "in place". These "fools" on TV are not your personal friends and they are simply responding to their "sponsorships" and will do anything that those sponsors say. Simon says leap off a cliff... will you all leap off a cliff? Survey says "Yes!".
Another group perceive that they have a livelihood that has taken them this far in life and it is far too late to change now. Maybe they work in the petrochemical industry or for a mining conglomerate that is mining for coal. Naturally they will fight to "keep what is theirs". Their families and future generations will just need to look after themselves. Just "taking care of business".
Then there is the group that can smell an upset in the markets coming and they need a certain stability to trade in shares. Their "Blue Chip" stocks and shares are all mutually dependent on a very cozy stable configuration. Like a pack of cards if one of the biggies like Exxon or a large energy Utility fails it will bring the "house" down because all the "biggies" invest in each other to maintain their mutual corporate worth.
Most of the affluent rest (including the ones above) have their motor car and they use energy produced by coal fired turbines. So every time they watch their TV Show or take a hot shower they are contributing to greenhouse gases. No alternatives are being offered by the Government and in some cases they may even penalize them using any alternatives.
So who wants to change? A few Friends of the Earth with some rather mad messianic view of the future where we go back to the stone age and disappear back into the Jungle. Not a very acceptable alternative for the rest of us. There are a few cranks and "propeller heads" who have invested heavily in a lot of very small scale "new age" gimmickry in the hope that we can all go back to this idealized past... However an acceptable reality for most is very different. The only group that actually want to change and have gone on record is the scientists. I know this will be disputed but claims by a number of small organizations to the contrary do not mean they are actually helping to do anything about it as a real problem with solutions. The Scientists do it not because it can assist them in their careers or improve their share portfolio but because the evidence is inescapable. They know that Governments do not want to hear the truth and as things get worse all that will happen is resources will be shifted from the indefensible majority to the rich and powerful minority so at least the "cream of society will survive". So don't you worry about that... nothing to see here ... move along.
So why do Scientists speak out at all even though Government is trying to shut them up by reducing resources and by altering the reports that are being released to the public? I know that most of you out there have your own private reasons and arguments. Some are slowly awakening to a problem that may appear beyond our ability to fix... I know that many are saying that but do not believe it ... we can fix it even now. The others are the problem and for one reason or another they are a majority... they need a reason for continuing to do what they do and a reason to not change. You all "know" and are responsible. It was one thing when you were "ignorant", it is not the case now and we understand what is happening. So what is the excuse now? Go face your daemons alone and please do not take the rest of us with you on your trip into an abyss.
Many solutions exist and it would not necessarily involve a return to the stone age. It will need some readjustment. You know that is inevitable and the longer you wait the greater that readjustment will be. Do not cringe in the corner of your Churches one day a week and the rest of the week it is "business as usual" waiting for Jesus or other nominated deity to save you... you do not deserve it and no true g*d has any patience for those who do nothing about their own predicament. I would also caution you all not to rely on some messianic resolution... like Jim Jones or Heaven's Gate.
We must do some of it right now and not wait that extra twenty years. There are technical solutions. People want to fight the war on terror and spend a 1/2 billion USD a day on that. How much more important is the War on the Environment that we are relentlessly waging for the last century and more. It is time to "desist" and find new ways to solve those those old problems. It is most urgent to start now because of the enormous "lag" in the system. It is vital to understand this one point. Start now. We are not the Conquerers of the Earth you have been told in Church, we are it's Stewards.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Mar 24 2007, 08:11 PM)
Another group perceive that they have a livelihood that has taken them this far in life and it is far too late to change now. Maybe they work in the petrochemical industry or for a mining conglomerate that is mining for coal. Naturally they will fight to "keep what is theirs". Their families and future generations will just need to look after themselves. Just "taking care of business".
Then there is the group that can smell an upset in the markets coming and they need a certain stability to trade in shares. Their "Blue Chip" stocks and shares are all mutually dependent on a very cozy stable configuration. Like a pack of cards if one of the biggies like Exxon or a large energy Utility fails it will bring the "house" down because all the "biggies" invest in each other to maintain their mutual corporate worth.
Most of the affluent rest (including the ones above) have their motor car and they use energy produced by coal fired turbines. So every time they watch their TV Show or take a hot shower they are contributing to greenhouse gases. No alternatives are being offered by the Government and in some cases they may even penalize them using any alternatives.
What a WARPED, and peculiarly Elfian view of the world.
The reason for GW and or why nothing is being done is because of:
People in the mining or petrochemical industries.
Shareholders in Exxon and/or Blue Chip Stocks
The Affulent's use of energy.
Government not offering alternatives.
Gosh, lets get the pitchforks and torches, and storm their houses.
As Pogo was fond of saying,
Arthur
Then there is the group that can smell an upset in the markets coming and they need a certain stability to trade in shares. Their "Blue Chip" stocks and shares are all mutually dependent on a very cozy stable configuration. Like a pack of cards if one of the biggies like Exxon or a large energy Utility fails it will bring the "house" down because all the "biggies" invest in each other to maintain their mutual corporate worth.
Most of the affluent rest (including the ones above) have their motor car and they use energy produced by coal fired turbines. So every time they watch their TV Show or take a hot shower they are contributing to greenhouse gases. No alternatives are being offered by the Government and in some cases they may even penalize them using any alternatives.
What a WARPED, and peculiarly Elfian view of the world.
The reason for GW and or why nothing is being done is because of:
People in the mining or petrochemical industries.
Shareholders in Exxon and/or Blue Chip Stocks
The Affulent's use of energy.
Government not offering alternatives.
Gosh, lets get the pitchforks and torches, and storm their houses.
As Pogo was fond of saying,
Arthur
And your point is?
Are you saying this is what you would do or should do or does what I say indicate what you think I might do... or is this just a rant by you? It is "misdirection" isn't it? Very amusing... I like "tricks"...
Are you saying this is what you would do or should do or does what I say indicate what you think I might do... or is this just a rant by you? It is "misdirection" isn't it? Very amusing... I like "tricks"...
Actually the most common reason why nothing is being done about Global Warming is more because of people like the second (adoucette) above poster, who hides his 'fear of caring' behind a mask of apathetic sarcasm that tends to diffuse real conversation and lowers it to little more then an attempt at a 'witty' (if they are good at it) insult fest.
BTW 'fear of caring' is as a result of people caring, finding out that when you care you make yourself more vulnerable to abuses, and since they are afraid of that, they cover it over with sarcasm and sarcaustic retort.
Doing something about Global Warming takes people who care about it, and it takes-needs people to care about it, not sarcaustic retort.
It looks/sound funny, but it advances this discussion more backwards then forwards.
BTW 'fear of caring' is as a result of people caring, finding out that when you care you make yourself more vulnerable to abuses, and since they are afraid of that, they cover it over with sarcasm and sarcaustic retort.
Doing something about Global Warming takes people who care about it, and it takes-needs people to care about it, not sarcaustic retort.
It looks/sound funny, but it advances this discussion more backwards then forwards.
Hi Mr. Robin Parsons, adoucette et al,
I think Robin is right... it needs discussion not ridicule and while I realize the statement by Adoucette does not amount to any particular point of view there may be some that may think this constitutes a "reasoned attack".
For those unfamiliar with this line of "attack" you need to take in a movie... try "Thank you for smoking". In society today spin is a very useful tool to interrupt the process of reason. I would not use it myself. Most humor in society is used to have a little harmless banter and a laugh, it all involves somebody being the butt of the joke, presumably someone who doesn't mind and wants to join in. If the fate of the Earth is involved we should think about the consequences a little more seriously.
While still only an "elf", I do rub shoulders with those in my workplace that are intimately involved with this problem of Global Warming and none of them are laughing.
Cheers
I think Robin is right... it needs discussion not ridicule and while I realize the statement by Adoucette does not amount to any particular point of view there may be some that may think this constitutes a "reasoned attack".
For those unfamiliar with this line of "attack" you need to take in a movie... try "Thank you for smoking". In society today spin is a very useful tool to interrupt the process of reason. I would not use it myself. Most humor in society is used to have a little harmless banter and a laugh, it all involves somebody being the butt of the joke, presumably someone who doesn't mind and wants to join in. If the fate of the Earth is involved we should think about the consequences a little more seriously.
While still only an "elf", I do rub shoulders with those in my workplace that are intimately involved with this problem of Global Warming and none of them are laughing.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Mar 25 2007, 10:39 AM)
And your point is?
Are you saying this is what you would do or should do or does what I say indicate what you think I might do... or is this just a rant by you? It is "misdirection" isn't it? Very amusing... I like "tricks"...
My point is the "problem" is NOT related to your simplistic analysis.
It is NOT because of the people in the Petrochemical and Mining industries (a relatively TINY group of people) who have relatively zip political influence.
It is NOT because of Exxon or its shareholders. While a larger group of people, the MAJORITY of the shareholders hold stock via MUTUAL FUNDS and probably don't even know they own Exxon (or Shell or BP stock). NO single Fund or Investor owns 5% of these WIDELY HELD stocks, and unlike your claim, Exxon doesn't invest its cash reserves in the stock market, so there is no "house of cards" that you describe.
It is NOT because of the affluent. Again, a relatively small group, so even if Al Gore uses 20 times the average energy, there aren't enough Al Gores to be the problem.
The fact is, if GW is a problem and if it is based on the increase of GHG's then the problem has been building for over 100 years and what is MOST CLEAR is the per capita share of GHGs has been dropping for some time (we are much more energy efficient NOW then we ever were), so the worse culprits, ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, are your parents or grandparents, who not only were wasteful (of resources and the environment) but had too many friggin children.
Let's round them up and yell at them shall we?
Arthur
Are you saying this is what you would do or should do or does what I say indicate what you think I might do... or is this just a rant by you? It is "misdirection" isn't it? Very amusing... I like "tricks"...
My point is the "problem" is NOT related to your simplistic analysis.
It is NOT because of the people in the Petrochemical and Mining industries (a relatively TINY group of people) who have relatively zip political influence.
It is NOT because of Exxon or its shareholders. While a larger group of people, the MAJORITY of the shareholders hold stock via MUTUAL FUNDS and probably don't even know they own Exxon (or Shell or BP stock). NO single Fund or Investor owns 5% of these WIDELY HELD stocks, and unlike your claim, Exxon doesn't invest its cash reserves in the stock market, so there is no "house of cards" that you describe.
It is NOT because of the affluent. Again, a relatively small group, so even if Al Gore uses 20 times the average energy, there aren't enough Al Gores to be the problem.
The fact is, if GW is a problem and if it is based on the increase of GHG's then the problem has been building for over 100 years and what is MOST CLEAR is the per capita share of GHGs has been dropping for some time (we are much more energy efficient NOW then we ever were), so the worse culprits, ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, are your parents or grandparents, who not only were wasteful (of resources and the environment) but had too many friggin children.
Let's round them up and yell at them shall we?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 25 2007, 12:37 PM)
It is NOT because of the people in the Petrochemical and Mining industries (a relatively TINY group of people) who have relatively zip political influence.
Arthur
WOW, ever off the mark on that one, "No political influence"
Even the people in the petrochemical industry recognize that there is a problem, just that they (some of them) don't want the market influence that is associated with them deciding to change their companies operating manner as that places them in a position of not being able to compete on the open market.
The people in the Coal industry face the same problems, which is why they haven't voluntarily changed their systems as to reduce the outputs of gases that they emit.
As for your blaming the people of the past, yes they were in-efficient, but they didn't always know any better probably because companies hired people like you.
Nice to notice though that little ray of sunshine in you admitting to recognizance of the fact to a Problem.
Going to go find you an interesting read to link up here, an expert opinion.
Arthur
WOW, ever off the mark on that one, "No political influence"
Even the people in the petrochemical industry recognize that there is a problem, just that they (some of them) don't want the market influence that is associated with them deciding to change their companies operating manner as that places them in a position of not being able to compete on the open market.
The people in the Coal industry face the same problems, which is why they haven't voluntarily changed their systems as to reduce the outputs of gases that they emit.
As for your blaming the people of the past, yes they were in-efficient, but they didn't always know any better probably because companies hired people like you.
Nice to notice though that little ray of sunshine in you admitting to recognizance of the fact to a Problem.
Going to go find you an interesting read to link up here, an expert opinion.
Please adoucette, go read this article it is on our energy future and it is written by an expert in the energy field
Imperial oil Review
It is an eye opening assessment.
Imperial oil Review
It is an eye opening assessment.
BTW adoucette your persistence at taking someone Like Mr. Al Gore to task, based upon his personal energy usage, you do recognize that he is a former Vice President of your country and that, as that, he has attracted and received a great deal of public attention, coupled to the simply reality that anyone who garners such "Great Fame" needs to protect themselves, and their family, from the miscreants that chase such fame by circumstance, hence increased security at the personal Home(s) is a requisite, and that uses More power then your home would.
Asides from that it is quintessentially American that some individuals can have more then other individuals, especially when they have worked at it and achieved the goals that thereafter present those rewards of wealth.
That he could present His home life as "a better example" requires that we all know the divisions between how much more he, personally is using, as opposed to what his 'current status-fame' as a citizen and Former Vice President of your country requires him to use.
That you seem to have missed that, repetitively, well it would imply that you are an egotistically small minded individual who cannot grasp at reality in more of it's presentation then just what you personally experience.
After that, the eminently foreseeable future of energy consumption tells us very clearly that we need to do something about energy use, NOW! ....not tomorrow ....not next week - NOW!
Otherwise we are the next lunch special "Misty-haze glazed coughing Frog soup"
If everyone in the United States (and/or Canada too) were to reduce their own personal showering time from ten minutes to eight minutes the savings in Hot water, that is otherwise simply going down the drain and heating up the Planets "moderator system" (the Water, Lakes-rivers-Oceans) is an enormous number of gallons, in the Billions, on a Daily Basis
Little changes, on personal levels, can make HUGE differences in how fast this occurs, or even to the point of, if it occurs at all.
Asides from that it is quintessentially American that some individuals can have more then other individuals, especially when they have worked at it and achieved the goals that thereafter present those rewards of wealth.
That he could present His home life as "a better example" requires that we all know the divisions between how much more he, personally is using, as opposed to what his 'current status-fame' as a citizen and Former Vice President of your country requires him to use.
That you seem to have missed that, repetitively, well it would imply that you are an egotistically small minded individual who cannot grasp at reality in more of it's presentation then just what you personally experience.
After that, the eminently foreseeable future of energy consumption tells us very clearly that we need to do something about energy use, NOW! ....not tomorrow ....not next week - NOW!
Otherwise we are the next lunch special "Misty-haze glazed coughing Frog soup"
If everyone in the United States (and/or Canada too) were to reduce their own personal showering time from ten minutes to eight minutes the savings in Hot water, that is otherwise simply going down the drain and heating up the Planets "moderator system" (the Water, Lakes-rivers-Oceans) is an enormous number of gallons, in the Billions, on a Daily Basis
Little changes, on personal levels, can make HUGE differences in how fast this occurs, or even to the point of, if it occurs at all.
That too is one of the more remarkable things about all of the Global Warming debating, the realities.
Most of the Conversations focus on things like Green House gases, mentions too the realities of chemistry that tell us that CO2, on it's own, only causes the infra red radiation to be reflected back, but that CO2, on it's own, has no real 'thermal capacity' such that it is not believed to be causing any real retention of the Planets temperature output, and our collective input, into that...but all of that is something that is quite common to the study of 'errors' and 'why things go wrong' in human endeavors, as it is a mis-focusing of reason.
The reality is such that the Atmosphere has a (roughly) ten day water cycle, that means between the time that the water evaporates forms from a source, is airborne as water vapor, and then re-condenses back into water as to fall back down as rain well, it is in that time factor that we can easily envision just where the extra heat "storage" and/or reflected back heat would be (is) going....into the water.
It is similar to all of the proponents that tell of the realities of the heat dissipation cycles of the planets' atmosphere, yet miss the mark entirely when it comes to the real factors a work, like the manner in which we are heating up the planets water (It doesn't miss all of them as they have remarked upon the fact of the Oceans surface temperatures rising) as it is sorta like we love to believe that the Heat simply 'dissipates' into the atmosphere and then off out into space, all the while missing completely just how much of the planets water supplies we are heating up, on an ongoing & daily basis, and the very important knowledge of the capacitance of water to retain heat for a long time.
It is called "specific heat" the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of one gram of water one degree Celsius, but it is a bit mis-leading as water is the "Benchmark" used for that Chemical Property of matter such that, the excellent retentive abilities of water, to store and hold heat, for a Loooong time, does not show in the mention of waters specific heat value as it is assigned as the benchmark, hence it's value is one.
Most other substances are lower in Specific heat value as most other substances do NOT retain heat for very long, certainly NOT in comparison to water....good old H2O!
Water is very good at holding heat, it is an excellent insulator, and has been known to be the moderator of the planets temperature regimes for a loooooong time....and that is what we are really tampering with, that is what Global Warming is about, the temperature of the water because that is how you HOLD the heat here .....longer, far longer then if it is simply released into the atmosphere and there was no barrier to it's escape, as the CO2 is now presenting itself to be.
We need to act, as not acting is the demise of any potential future for all of the Children.
BTW adoucette your comment about the 'past generations producing to many children' well, your one of them, would you rather have not been born?
Most of the Conversations focus on things like Green House gases, mentions too the realities of chemistry that tell us that CO2, on it's own, only causes the infra red radiation to be reflected back, but that CO2, on it's own, has no real 'thermal capacity' such that it is not believed to be causing any real retention of the Planets temperature output, and our collective input, into that...but all of that is something that is quite common to the study of 'errors' and 'why things go wrong' in human endeavors, as it is a mis-focusing of reason.
The reality is such that the Atmosphere has a (roughly) ten day water cycle, that means between the time that the water evaporates forms from a source, is airborne as water vapor, and then re-condenses back into water as to fall back down as rain well, it is in that time factor that we can easily envision just where the extra heat "storage" and/or reflected back heat would be (is) going....into the water.
It is similar to all of the proponents that tell of the realities of the heat dissipation cycles of the planets' atmosphere, yet miss the mark entirely when it comes to the real factors a work, like the manner in which we are heating up the planets water (It doesn't miss all of them as they have remarked upon the fact of the Oceans surface temperatures rising) as it is sorta like we love to believe that the Heat simply 'dissipates' into the atmosphere and then off out into space, all the while missing completely just how much of the planets water supplies we are heating up, on an ongoing & daily basis, and the very important knowledge of the capacitance of water to retain heat for a long time.
It is called "specific heat" the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of one gram of water one degree Celsius, but it is a bit mis-leading as water is the "Benchmark" used for that Chemical Property of matter such that, the excellent retentive abilities of water, to store and hold heat, for a Loooong time, does not show in the mention of waters specific heat value as it is assigned as the benchmark, hence it's value is one.
Most other substances are lower in Specific heat value as most other substances do NOT retain heat for very long, certainly NOT in comparison to water....good old H2O!
Water is very good at holding heat, it is an excellent insulator, and has been known to be the moderator of the planets temperature regimes for a loooooong time....and that is what we are really tampering with, that is what Global Warming is about, the temperature of the water because that is how you HOLD the heat here .....longer, far longer then if it is simply released into the atmosphere and there was no barrier to it's escape, as the CO2 is now presenting itself to be.
We need to act, as not acting is the demise of any potential future for all of the Children.
BTW adoucette your comment about the 'past generations producing to many children' well, your one of them, would you rather have not been born?
If we assume there is global warming due to greenhouse gases, the whole idea of carbon credits goes against the cause. As an analogy, picture if there was a water shortage requiring everyone to cut back. So we collectively reduce usage down to 80%. Would it make any sense for a few people to maintain their usage at the expense of all those who are sacrificing. The big guy who generates a billion tons of CO2, cuts back to a half billion and gets paid for this by selling offsets. The little guy has to cut back on his one ton and get nothing but a warm fuzzy feeling. The whole game is a rip off for the little guy.
If you look at electricity. Electricity is clean and does not generate any green house gases, after it enters your house. I don't generate any GH gases with my electricity (if you don't count my CO2 generator so I can keep up with the big guys; just kidding) All the GH gases are generated at the source. Once it reaches the consumer it is clean.
If the government forced the utilities companies to make the needed changes for GH gases, do you think that will come out of profits? Wrong, it will be passed onto the consumer in the form of higher prices. What you pay for electricity already contains the cost of the GH gases. It also contains the cost of every environmental adjustment ever made. You have already paid once, thats your contribution to the cause. What you are burning is clean energy. One of the by-products of utilities profit are GH gases. If electricity was free and they produced GH gases trying to help us, we would be responsible.
Gasoline is different. One is paying for a product that generated very little greenhouse gas to produce. That little bit is include in the price and is a by-product of profit. But after that, the use of this product does generate lots of GH gases. That is one product each person is responsible for.
If you look at electricity. Electricity is clean and does not generate any green house gases, after it enters your house. I don't generate any GH gases with my electricity (if you don't count my CO2 generator so I can keep up with the big guys; just kidding) All the GH gases are generated at the source. Once it reaches the consumer it is clean.
If the government forced the utilities companies to make the needed changes for GH gases, do you think that will come out of profits? Wrong, it will be passed onto the consumer in the form of higher prices. What you pay for electricity already contains the cost of the GH gases. It also contains the cost of every environmental adjustment ever made. You have already paid once, thats your contribution to the cause. What you are burning is clean energy. One of the by-products of utilities profit are GH gases. If electricity was free and they produced GH gases trying to help us, we would be responsible.
Gasoline is different. One is paying for a product that generated very little greenhouse gas to produce. That little bit is include in the price and is a by-product of profit. But after that, the use of this product does generate lots of GH gases. That is one product each person is responsible for.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Mar 25 2007, 12:26 PM)
Please adoucette, go read this article it is on our energy future and it is written by an expert in the energy field
Imperial oil Review
It is an eye opening assessment.
Yeah, thanks, it was nothing any reasonably aware person shouldn't already know.
For instance:
"Eighty-five percent of the world's people live in developing countries, where gross domestic product per capita is only six percent of that in the developed world. Some 1.6 billion people have no access to electricity, 2.5 billion are without proper sanitation and 18 percent of the world's population lacks access to safe drinking water.
"Those problems cannot be addressed without an increase in energy consumption," Hearn says. "Energy in all forms will be needed to build and run the industries and plants that will generate new wealth and create jobs, as well as to provide basics such as heat, light and motive power, housing, food production, clean water, health care and so on.
Since you are a Canadian, this is for you:
Well what about Wind and Solar?
Well what about Wind and Solar?
"There doesn't seem to be much doubt that oil and gas will remain the dominant sources of the world's and Canada's energy throughout the first quarter of this century and probably well beyond that," says Hughes. "We might see a 20-fold increase in the use of wind and solar by 2020, but even with that growth, those alternative energy sources will account for less than one percent of total energy consumption around the world."
(But we probably WON'T see a 20 FOLD increase by 2020)
So its really quite simple, anyone who thinks the amount of RAW ENERGY the world uses on a DAILY basis is going to GO DOWN anytime soon, is living in a DREAM WORLD.
Anyone who thinks that the share of energy from fossil fuels is likely to go DOWN over the next quarter century is living in a DREAM WORLD.
Anyone who thinks that the 15% of people who live in the DEVELOPED countries will find sufficient ways to cut back on energy use to OFFSET the increased energy demands of the other 85% as well as the additional energy needs of 3 BILLION MORE PEOPLE who will inhabit the planet within the next 50 years, is living in a DREAM WORLD.
Its NOT the people who work in the Mines and Petrochemical industry that are responsible.
Its NOT companies like Exxon, or BP or Shell that are responsible.
Its NOT the affluent, like Al Gore, that are responsible.
IT IS ALL OF US.
COLLECTIVELY.
And guess what?
Its HIGHELY UNLIKELY that WE collectively are going to change.
In fact the DEVELOPING NATIONS, that 85% the article talks about, will do everything it can to LIVE much like the current 15% in the Developed Nations.
Which is why, any SOLUTION which is aimed only at unilaterally RESTRICTING ENERGY in the developing countries (like Kyoto) is bound to fail.
Which is why, any SOLUTION which doesn't involve the DEVLOPING NATIONS (like Kyoto) is bound to fail.
Which is why, any SOLUTION which doesn't involve a MASSIVE investment/switch to CLEAN COAL and NUCLEAR (like Kyoto) is bound to fail, as only these work for BASE LOADs.
Which is why, any SOLUTION which doesn't target POLLUTION, such as SOOT, CH4, SOx, NOx and CFCs, that otherwise will see marked increases due to population trends (like Kyoto), is bound to fail.
Arthur
Arthur
So, your laughing at yourself now?
Personally (I) don't find Global Warming all that funny, but (I) guess you do.
BTW good practice on the two child replacement 'policy' of yours, everyone should be following that 'policy' ......or less.
Another closet America Basher.
Another closet America Basher.
There is an attempt to grab the oil and coal reserves as a strategy in global politics
BS
Next 10 years? No way. You can barely build a new reactor in that period of time, let alone develop a NEW energy technology.
Next 10 years? No way. You can barely build a new reactor in that period of time, let alone develop a NEW energy technology.
As to the US being the largest manufacturer in the world I would call your attention to this graph of %age World GDP.
Actually when you consider relative POPULATION size, this graph of the US domination in manufacturing is even MORE IMPRESSIVE.
They already have it. They call it NUCLEAR. Its not quite as cheap as fossil fuel, but close enough, it can produce massive quantities of energy without taking up a lot of land and its cheaper than any other CO2 free alternative.
Arthur
Which would be good for BOTH the US and CHINA.
Of course I seriously DOUBT that China will continue at the same pace it has been for the next 40 years. Somewhere along the way, China will stop the pell mell growth at any cost and do something about its RAGING POLLUTION. A rapidly rising GDP tends to lose its luster as a prize when you have 7 or the top 10 polluted cities in the world within your borders.
Which would be good for BOTH the US and CHINA.
Of course I seriously DOUBT that China will continue at the same pace it has been for the next 40 years. Somewhere along the way, China will stop the pell mell growth at any cost and do something about its RAGING POLLUTION. A rapidly rising GDP tends to lose its luster as a prize when you have 7 or the top 10 polluted cities in the world within your borders.
given that at present, 1/3 of all US highschool graduates are functionally illiterate
You believe this BS?
How about this?
http://www.literacy.ca/lac/campaign/letter.htm
Arthur
Imperial oil Review
It is an eye opening assessment.
Yeah, thanks, it was nothing any reasonably aware person shouldn't already know.
For instance:
"Eighty-five percent of the world's people live in developing countries, where gross domestic product per capita is only six percent of that in the developed world. Some 1.6 billion people have no access to electricity, 2.5 billion are without proper sanitation and 18 percent of the world's population lacks access to safe drinking water.
"Those problems cannot be addressed without an increase in energy consumption," Hearn says. "Energy in all forms will be needed to build and run the industries and plants that will generate new wealth and create jobs, as well as to provide basics such as heat, light and motive power, housing, food production, clean water, health care and so on.
Since you are a Canadian, this is for you:
QUOTE
Total consumption of all forms of energy in Canada today is roughly equivalent to 5.4 million barrels a day of crude oil. Imperial's outlook is for total energy use to increase by about 45 percent by 2020, to the equivalent of about 7.3 million barrels of crude oil a day.
Imperial and the EIA also agree that most of the needed additional energy will come from oil and gas,
Imperial and the EIA also agree that most of the needed additional energy will come from oil and gas,
Well what about Wind and Solar?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Total consumption of all forms of energy in Canada today is roughly equivalent to 5.4 million barrels a day of crude oil. Imperial's outlook is for total energy use to increase by about 45 percent by 2020, to the equivalent of about 7.3 million barrels of crude oil a day. Imperial and the EIA also agree that most of the needed additional energy will come from oil and gas, |
Well what about Wind and Solar?
"There doesn't seem to be much doubt that oil and gas will remain the dominant sources of the world's and Canada's energy throughout the first quarter of this century and probably well beyond that," says Hughes. "We might see a 20-fold increase in the use of wind and solar by 2020, but even with that growth, those alternative energy sources will account for less than one percent of total energy consumption around the world."
(But we probably WON'T see a 20 FOLD increase by 2020)
So its really quite simple, anyone who thinks the amount of RAW ENERGY the world uses on a DAILY basis is going to GO DOWN anytime soon, is living in a DREAM WORLD.
Anyone who thinks that the share of energy from fossil fuels is likely to go DOWN over the next quarter century is living in a DREAM WORLD.
Anyone who thinks that the 15% of people who live in the DEVELOPED countries will find sufficient ways to cut back on energy use to OFFSET the increased energy demands of the other 85% as well as the additional energy needs of 3 BILLION MORE PEOPLE who will inhabit the planet within the next 50 years, is living in a DREAM WORLD.
Its NOT the people who work in the Mines and Petrochemical industry that are responsible.
Its NOT companies like Exxon, or BP or Shell that are responsible.
Its NOT the affluent, like Al Gore, that are responsible.
IT IS ALL OF US.
COLLECTIVELY.
And guess what?
Its HIGHELY UNLIKELY that WE collectively are going to change.
In fact the DEVELOPING NATIONS, that 85% the article talks about, will do everything it can to LIVE much like the current 15% in the Developed Nations.
Which is why, any SOLUTION which is aimed only at unilaterally RESTRICTING ENERGY in the developing countries (like Kyoto) is bound to fail.
Which is why, any SOLUTION which doesn't involve the DEVLOPING NATIONS (like Kyoto) is bound to fail.
Which is why, any SOLUTION which doesn't involve a MASSIVE investment/switch to CLEAN COAL and NUCLEAR (like Kyoto) is bound to fail, as only these work for BASE LOADs.
Which is why, any SOLUTION which doesn't target POLLUTION, such as SOOT, CH4, SOx, NOx and CFCs, that otherwise will see marked increases due to population trends (like Kyoto), is bound to fail.
Arthur
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Mar 25 2007, 02:16 PM)
adoucette your comment about the 'past generations producing to many children' well, your one of them, would you rather have not been born?
Nope.
I'm rather fond of this life.
And you are wrong about my parents as well.
They had TWO kids.
I have had TWO kids.
My brother has had TWO kids.
That's mearly replacement values.
i.e. sustainable.
Arthur
Nope.
I'm rather fond of this life.
And you are wrong about my parents as well.
They had TWO kids.
I have had TWO kids.
My brother has had TWO kids.
That's mearly replacement values.
i.e. sustainable.
Arthur
So then the idea that the U.S. is producing 25% of the worlds' pollution, from a base population that is 5% of the planets, means ....Nothing?
What we need is leadership that shows the way to develop better methods of producing cleaner energies, such that developing nations can "follow the leader".
That, and leadership that helps promote a society that is NOT energy Wasteful.
(Someone call Oprah!)
adoucette your sarcastic nature is very revealing, about you.
MDT carbon taxes are meant to help to promote reductions by individuals in their current energy consumption.
Daily (I) watch as people that are in the environment that (I) live in, indulge themselves in wasteful practices without thought or seemingly consequence, mostly because there is no one there to police them, no one there to explain to them how wasteful they are being as some of them are just like adoucette, a sarcastic retort about it is their 'right' (even though they are not paying for it) or "it doesn't matter" and they just keep right on going about needlessly wasting energy.
Hot water running down the sink, the refrigerator open, and left open, while they go off to do something else, lights left on in the washroom with a fan running too ...and YUP! (I) have tried to point it out, but that usually just gets me more dis-liked.
What we need is leadership that shows the way to develop better methods of producing cleaner energies, such that developing nations can "follow the leader".
That, and leadership that helps promote a society that is NOT energy Wasteful.
(Someone call Oprah!)
adoucette your sarcastic nature is very revealing, about you.
MDT carbon taxes are meant to help to promote reductions by individuals in their current energy consumption.
Daily (I) watch as people that are in the environment that (I) live in, indulge themselves in wasteful practices without thought or seemingly consequence, mostly because there is no one there to police them, no one there to explain to them how wasteful they are being as some of them are just like adoucette, a sarcastic retort about it is their 'right' (even though they are not paying for it) or "it doesn't matter" and they just keep right on going about needlessly wasting energy.
Hot water running down the sink, the refrigerator open, and left open, while they go off to do something else, lights left on in the washroom with a fan running too ...and YUP! (I) have tried to point it out, but that usually just gets me more dis-liked.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 25 2007, 06:17 PM)
(SNIP)And you are wrong about my parents as well. (SNoP)
Uhmmm adoucette, could you please show me where (I) made ANY mention of "your parents"??
Better yet explain to all of us where it is that you got that idea from?? ...cause it sure as anything was NOT from me!
Uhmmm adoucette, could you please show me where (I) made ANY mention of "your parents"??
Better yet explain to all of us where it is that you got that idea from?? ...cause it sure as anything was NOT from me!
If one plotted wealth versus energy usage/pollution there is a direct relationship. There is nothing wrong with being wealthy, just with wealth comes more means and need for space and consumption. Building a bigger house worthy of your status and wealth uses more or everything compared to a smaller house. That is why US uses so much. There is a lot of wealth and a lot of desire for lots of things, often more than one of everything. Many people have more than one TV or computer working at the same time.
There is where the problem lies there is no standard for what a single human should be able to generate. Here is what I would do. We add up all the energy X and pollution Y for culture. Multiply this by 90% for a net reduction. Next divide this number by the number of people in culture. This is each person's X,Y share for that year. The poor person will end up with more X and Y then they can use and the wealthy not enough. Next we allow the free enterprise to work buying and selling X and Y credits. The net affect is a cut back in X and Y, a reward for low X and Y usage and a surcharge for excess X and Y usage, with all the money staying in the economy.
There is where the problem lies there is no standard for what a single human should be able to generate. Here is what I would do. We add up all the energy X and pollution Y for culture. Multiply this by 90% for a net reduction. Next divide this number by the number of people in culture. This is each person's X,Y share for that year. The poor person will end up with more X and Y then they can use and the wealthy not enough. Next we allow the free enterprise to work buying and selling X and Y credits. The net affect is a cut back in X and Y, a reward for low X and Y usage and a surcharge for excess X and Y usage, with all the money staying in the economy.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Mar 25 2007, 05:34 PM)
So then the idea that the U.S. is producing 25% of the worlds' pollution, from a base population that is 5% of the planets, means ....Nothing?
Ah, so we are back to America bashing.
What took you so long?
It may have escaped your notice but the US is the WORLDS LARGEST MANUFACTURER.
But lets see if we can put it in perspective.
When a Finnish company like NOKIA sells a phone that is composed almost ENTIERLY of parts and raw materials manufactured outside Finland, then sells them all over the world, WHAT country gets the HIT for the CO2 produced?
Finland?
Nope.
Which is why the figures you quote are somewhat MEANINGLESS.
Of course our energy use is high. Manufacturing is an energy intensive process.
So, unless every country that BUYS a Boeing jet TAKES credit for the CO2 used to make it, or anything else that started as a raw or manufactured product in another country, than comparisons between countries are meaningless.
Arthur
Ah, so we are back to America bashing.
What took you so long?
It may have escaped your notice but the US is the WORLDS LARGEST MANUFACTURER.
But lets see if we can put it in perspective.
When a Finnish company like NOKIA sells a phone that is composed almost ENTIERLY of parts and raw materials manufactured outside Finland, then sells them all over the world, WHAT country gets the HIT for the CO2 produced?
Finland?
Nope.
Which is why the figures you quote are somewhat MEANINGLESS.
Of course our energy use is high. Manufacturing is an energy intensive process.
So, unless every country that BUYS a Boeing jet TAKES credit for the CO2 used to make it, or anything else that started as a raw or manufactured product in another country, than comparisons between countries are meaningless.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 25 2007, 10:41 PM)
Ah, so we are back to America bashing.
What took you so long?
It may have escaped your notice but the US is the WORLDS LARGEST MANUFACTURER.
But lets see if we can put it in perspective.
When a Finnish company like NOKIA sells a phone that is composed almost ENTIERLY of parts and raw materials manufactured outside Finland, then sells them all over the world, WHAT country gets the HIT for the CO2 produced?
Finland? Nope. Which is why the figures you quote are somewhat MEANINGLESS.
Of course our energy use is high. Manufacturing is an energy intensive process.
So, unless every country that BUYS a Boeing jet TAKES credit for the CO2 used to make it, or anything else that started as a raw or manufactured product in another country, than comparisons between countries are meaningless.
Arthur
You mean in the same manner that Canada is "Taking the Hit" on Green house gas emissions for the production of oil from the Athabasca tar sands so we can sell that oil to the U.S.? ...Like that?
As for energy use, look at how many cars are driven every day in the U.S. with the two in every driveway policy.
Besides, where do you get the idea to turn on the defensive and accuse me of America bashing? oh yes, from the dodging of responding to any relevant facts.
Canadians are more polluting on a per capita basis, so you can take your false accusations and keep them in your head where they belong as, perhaps if you did, you would, yourself, have more energy for better, less angry, thought processes, and thereafter, responses.
Anger is self destructive and it would be nicer for all(?) if you 'hang around' longer as to add your insights into all of this.
What took you so long?
It may have escaped your notice but the US is the WORLDS LARGEST MANUFACTURER.
But lets see if we can put it in perspective.
When a Finnish company like NOKIA sells a phone that is composed almost ENTIERLY of parts and raw materials manufactured outside Finland, then sells them all over the world, WHAT country gets the HIT for the CO2 produced?
Finland? Nope. Which is why the figures you quote are somewhat MEANINGLESS.
Of course our energy use is high. Manufacturing is an energy intensive process.
So, unless every country that BUYS a Boeing jet TAKES credit for the CO2 used to make it, or anything else that started as a raw or manufactured product in another country, than comparisons between countries are meaningless.
Arthur
You mean in the same manner that Canada is "Taking the Hit" on Green house gas emissions for the production of oil from the Athabasca tar sands so we can sell that oil to the U.S.? ...Like that?
As for energy use, look at how many cars are driven every day in the U.S. with the two in every driveway policy.
Besides, where do you get the idea to turn on the defensive and accuse me of America bashing? oh yes, from the dodging of responding to any relevant facts.
Canadians are more polluting on a per capita basis, so you can take your false accusations and keep them in your head where they belong as, perhaps if you did, you would, yourself, have more energy for better, less angry, thought processes, and thereafter, responses.
Anger is self destructive and it would be nicer for all(?) if you 'hang around' longer as to add your insights into all of this.
If one concedes that Global Warming is a real problem does it also follow that the remedies for GW are the real solution?
QUOTE (.001+Mar 26 2007, 07:32 AM)
If one concedes that Global Warming is a real problem does it also follow that the remedies for GW are the real solution?
Depends entirely upon just what 'solutions' you are talking about, as not everything that is proposed will aid in the mitigation of our collective effect upon the Earth's systems.
In this case, Global Warming, mitigation is more what we can do as 'Solution' is simply not really there.
It requires changes to the ways we behave, energy wise and, especially, personally.
It interests me that the starter of this thread chose the words "Con Game" as in a real 'Con Game' someone is performing the 'Con' as to profit themselves enormously, yet in this case the only ones who would 'profit enormously' are all of us and our children, and future children.
So wheres the "Con"?
Depends entirely upon just what 'solutions' you are talking about, as not everything that is proposed will aid in the mitigation of our collective effect upon the Earth's systems.
In this case, Global Warming, mitigation is more what we can do as 'Solution' is simply not really there.
It requires changes to the ways we behave, energy wise and, especially, personally.
It interests me that the starter of this thread chose the words "Con Game" as in a real 'Con Game' someone is performing the 'Con' as to profit themselves enormously, yet in this case the only ones who would 'profit enormously' are all of us and our children, and future children.
So wheres the "Con"?
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Mar 26 2007, 05:42 AM)
As for energy use, look at how many cars are driven every day in the U.S. with the two in every driveway policy.
Besides, where do you get the idea to turn on the defensive and accuse me of America bashing?
Arthur
Besides, where do you get the idea to turn on the defensive and accuse me of America bashing?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 26 2007, 09:19 AM)
ArthurSo, your laughing at yourself now?
Personally (I) don't find Global Warming all that funny, but (I) guess you do.
BTW good practice on the two child replacement 'policy' of yours, everyone should be following that 'policy' ......or less.
I don't find GW to be any more funny than say Global Cooling.
I DO find peoples irrational behavior/statements in relation to the perception of global warming to be occasionally funny.
Like people who worry about the WASTE HEAT given off by the cooling system from a nuclear plant, ignoring the fact that the waste heat in the cooling water represents a small percentage of the energy produced by the power plant and that ALL of the energy produced by the power plant ENDS UP AS WASTE HEAT.
Particularly, when this misplaced concern is expressed on a PHYSICS forum.
Or when someone worries about the WASTE HEAT at all, but apparently ignores the fact that the Earth RECEIVES ~ 4.4 x 10^16 watts of energy from the sun each day.
Which is the equiv. of 440 MILLION MegaWatt power plants.
Which is ~ one such plant for each dozen people on the planet.
Sorry, but I tend to find such SILLYNESS, funny.
Arthur
I DO find peoples irrational behavior/statements in relation to the perception of global warming to be occasionally funny.
Like people who worry about the WASTE HEAT given off by the cooling system from a nuclear plant, ignoring the fact that the waste heat in the cooling water represents a small percentage of the energy produced by the power plant and that ALL of the energy produced by the power plant ENDS UP AS WASTE HEAT.
Particularly, when this misplaced concern is expressed on a PHYSICS forum.
Or when someone worries about the WASTE HEAT at all, but apparently ignores the fact that the Earth RECEIVES ~ 4.4 x 10^16 watts of energy from the sun each day.
Which is the equiv. of 440 MILLION MegaWatt power plants.
Which is ~ one such plant for each dozen people on the planet.
Sorry, but I tend to find such SILLYNESS, funny.
Arthur
Hi Adoucette and Mr. Robin Parsons et al,
I think this kind of personal squabble achieves nothing. The problem of Global Warming is not about energy usage but energy balance. Waste heat is not the issue it is the greenhouse effect related to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The problem is not the amount of energy we use, it is the amount of energy we are trapping in our environment. It is causing havoc with the oceans and the ice caps. This is a problem that can only be addressed by reducing the amount of fossil carbon circulating in the system to levels that the World's Ecosystem can handle. Until that happens a reduction in energy usage around the margins will do very little since the third world is about to swamp the west in this respect.
As to the statement that the mining industry and fossil energy sector being represented by an insignificant minority of voters... You could not tell that to our State Premier. We supply much of China's needs in coal and its needs are rapidly growing as its economy rapidly expands. Revenue for our state coffers floats on $'s generated by export Coal. A world without that coal is not acceptable to the political establishment of China or even places like India which is going to be the next "powerhouse" coming on stream. They will not be denied. I would also agree that even if we stopped exporting coal to the third world this would have no effect on greenhouse gases since other nations would immediately fill any gap ... there is a lot of coal out there and the demand is only going to grow.
The answer is not to be found in simplistic "denial" of resources.
As to the US being the largest manufacturer in the world I would call your attention to this graph of %age World GDP.
The US is in decline regards actual production of goods that require coal and oil. This is good from an environmental point of view but bad for World stability. Certainly the US is the major military power in the world but as it involves itself in Wars of attrition its energy resources/reserves are rapidly being drained and not replaced. The US is a so called "Superpower" but is a waning economic power, becoming more dependent on external trade to supply all its internal needs. You can see that the economies of China and India together equal the US GDP, as does the EEC. However the growth of the Chinese economy is roughly 10% PA. This means in 7 years this one economy alone will have doubled in size and the US will have shrunken further in overall production of goods. I realize that the US is putting all its efforts into intellectual property and "services" and much less emphasis on it's in technical ability. So much of its wealth is now in paper bonds and shares. I personally think this is not good.
There is an attempt to grab the oil and coal reserves as a strategy in global politics and become a surrogate Energy Superpower but it is an even bet in the next 10 years new sources of energy will come on stream that will make these "fossil carbon" resources far less valuable. Those with the most to lose will be making great advances in new technologies to retain their rise in their overall standards of living. It is an even bet that the country with the most technical ability will be the first to achieve these new resources whatever they may be. The key to everything is energy and much of that energy currently comes from fossil carbon.
What is really needed is cheap alternative sources of clean energy that do not use fossil fuels. The greenhouse effect can only be reduced by a reduction in the gross fossil carbon in the atmosphere to sustainable levels (around 1/2 the overall level of CO2 at present). The US is not attempting to make strides in that direction but other factors are in the equation now and I think the US has lost sight of its true goals and its ideals.
Cheers
I think this kind of personal squabble achieves nothing. The problem of Global Warming is not about energy usage but energy balance. Waste heat is not the issue it is the greenhouse effect related to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The problem is not the amount of energy we use, it is the amount of energy we are trapping in our environment. It is causing havoc with the oceans and the ice caps. This is a problem that can only be addressed by reducing the amount of fossil carbon circulating in the system to levels that the World's Ecosystem can handle. Until that happens a reduction in energy usage around the margins will do very little since the third world is about to swamp the west in this respect.
As to the statement that the mining industry and fossil energy sector being represented by an insignificant minority of voters... You could not tell that to our State Premier. We supply much of China's needs in coal and its needs are rapidly growing as its economy rapidly expands. Revenue for our state coffers floats on $'s generated by export Coal. A world without that coal is not acceptable to the political establishment of China or even places like India which is going to be the next "powerhouse" coming on stream. They will not be denied. I would also agree that even if we stopped exporting coal to the third world this would have no effect on greenhouse gases since other nations would immediately fill any gap ... there is a lot of coal out there and the demand is only going to grow.
The answer is not to be found in simplistic "denial" of resources.
As to the US being the largest manufacturer in the world I would call your attention to this graph of %age World GDP.
The US is in decline regards actual production of goods that require coal and oil. This is good from an environmental point of view but bad for World stability. Certainly the US is the major military power in the world but as it involves itself in Wars of attrition its energy resources/reserves are rapidly being drained and not replaced. The US is a so called "Superpower" but is a waning economic power, becoming more dependent on external trade to supply all its internal needs. You can see that the economies of China and India together equal the US GDP, as does the EEC. However the growth of the Chinese economy is roughly 10% PA. This means in 7 years this one economy alone will have doubled in size and the US will have shrunken further in overall production of goods. I realize that the US is putting all its efforts into intellectual property and "services" and much less emphasis on it's in technical ability. So much of its wealth is now in paper bonds and shares. I personally think this is not good.
There is an attempt to grab the oil and coal reserves as a strategy in global politics and become a surrogate Energy Superpower but it is an even bet in the next 10 years new sources of energy will come on stream that will make these "fossil carbon" resources far less valuable. Those with the most to lose will be making great advances in new technologies to retain their rise in their overall standards of living. It is an even bet that the country with the most technical ability will be the first to achieve these new resources whatever they may be. The key to everything is energy and much of that energy currently comes from fossil carbon.
What is really needed is cheap alternative sources of clean energy that do not use fossil fuels. The greenhouse effect can only be reduced by a reduction in the gross fossil carbon in the atmosphere to sustainable levels (around 1/2 the overall level of CO2 at present). The US is not attempting to make strides in that direction but other factors are in the equation now and I think the US has lost sight of its true goals and its ideals.
Cheers
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Mar 26 2007, 05:42 AM)
You mean in the same manner that Canada is "Taking the Hit" on Green house gas emissions for the production of oil from the Athabasca tar sands so we can sell that oil to the U.S.? ...Like that?
Yeah, but of course when the US burns the oil, with over 2/3s of it going into COMMERCIAL use, and makes a product that gets shipped back to Canada, the US gets the much LARGER hit.
The FACT is, WHERE CO2 is produced is ONLY one part of the story.
WHAT it is produced for and WHO consumes the end product are by far MUCH MORE IMPORTANT questions.
As far as residential users go:
I've spent quite a bit of time in other countries besides the US, this includes Canada, UK, Europe, Australia, Latin America and Southern America.
My basic impression is that MIDDLE CLASS people in every country I've visited have ROUGHLY the SAME CARBON FOOTPRINT.
They own one or two cars and usually drive at least one to work (UK and Europe seemed to have the highest usage of trains/busses).
They have a multi-bedroom - multi-bath house in a suburban setting.
The house has the same typical appliances: Refrigerator, Stove, Dish Washer, MicroWave, Clothes Washer, Clothes Dryer, Hot Water heater and (depending on climate) central heat & air.
The house has the same typical electrical uses: TVs, Stereos, computers, vacuum cleaners, lights, alarm clocks.
There REALLY is much more that makes us ALIKE in our energy uses than there are differences.
Arthur
Yeah, but of course when the US burns the oil, with over 2/3s of it going into COMMERCIAL use, and makes a product that gets shipped back to Canada, the US gets the much LARGER hit.
The FACT is, WHERE CO2 is produced is ONLY one part of the story.
WHAT it is produced for and WHO consumes the end product are by far MUCH MORE IMPORTANT questions.
As far as residential users go:
I've spent quite a bit of time in other countries besides the US, this includes Canada, UK, Europe, Australia, Latin America and Southern America.
My basic impression is that MIDDLE CLASS people in every country I've visited have ROUGHLY the SAME CARBON FOOTPRINT.
They own one or two cars and usually drive at least one to work (UK and Europe seemed to have the highest usage of trains/busses).
They have a multi-bedroom - multi-bath house in a suburban setting.
The house has the same typical appliances: Refrigerator, Stove, Dish Washer, MicroWave, Clothes Washer, Clothes Dryer, Hot Water heater and (depending on climate) central heat & air.
The house has the same typical electrical uses: TVs, Stereos, computers, vacuum cleaners, lights, alarm clocks.
There REALLY is much more that makes us ALIKE in our energy uses than there are differences.
Arthur
QUOTE
I think the US has lost sight of its true goals and its ideals.
Another closet America Basher.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I think the US has lost sight of its true goals and its ideals. |
Another closet America Basher.
There is an attempt to grab the oil and coal reserves as a strategy in global politics
BS
QUOTE
it is an even bet in the next 10 years new sources of energy will come on stream that will make these "fossil carbon" resources far less valuable.
Next 10 years? No way. You can barely build a new reactor in that period of time, let alone develop a NEW energy technology.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| it is an even bet in the next 10 years new sources of energy will come on stream that will make these "fossil carbon" resources far less valuable. |
Next 10 years? No way. You can barely build a new reactor in that period of time, let alone develop a NEW energy technology.
As to the US being the largest manufacturer in the world I would call your attention to this graph of %age World GDP.
Actually when you consider relative POPULATION size, this graph of the US domination in manufacturing is even MORE IMPRESSIVE.
QUOTE
What is really needed is cheap alternative sources of clean energy that do not use fossil fuels
They already have it. They call it NUCLEAR. Its not quite as cheap as fossil fuel, but close enough, it can produce massive quantities of energy without taking up a lot of land and its cheaper than any other CO2 free alternative.
Arthur
QUOTE (arthur+)
Another closet America Basher.
Arthur, I'll grant you that some on this forum do perhaps take some unwarranted excessive jabs at the US, but certainly GoodElf's post is merely an honest reflection of fact, and a calm one at that. If you do numbers, you'll find that if US and China continue to grow at average pace of past 5 yrs, China's per capita GDP will exceed that of US well before 2050. US's 17% in above chart is a DRAMATIC drop from recent 25% only a few yrs ago. Perhaps a modicum of (currently absent) modesty from our US fellow citizens of the world would reduce some of the more ardent bashing a tad?
And BTW, given that at present, 1/3 of all US highschool graduates are functionally illiterate, I would suggest hoarding designs for picks and coal shovels for future citizens energy needs.
Arthur, I'll grant you that some on this forum do perhaps take some unwarranted excessive jabs at the US, but certainly GoodElf's post is merely an honest reflection of fact, and a calm one at that. If you do numbers, you'll find that if US and China continue to grow at average pace of past 5 yrs, China's per capita GDP will exceed that of US well before 2050. US's 17% in above chart is a DRAMATIC drop from recent 25% only a few yrs ago. Perhaps a modicum of (currently absent) modesty from our US fellow citizens of the world would reduce some of the more ardent bashing a tad?
And BTW, given that at present, 1/3 of all US highschool graduates are functionally illiterate, I would suggest hoarding designs for picks and coal shovels for future citizens energy needs.
QUOTE
If you do numbers, you'll find that if US and China continue to grow at average pace of past 5 yrs, China's per capita GDP will exceed that of US well before 2050.
Which would be good for BOTH the US and CHINA.
Of course I seriously DOUBT that China will continue at the same pace it has been for the next 40 years. Somewhere along the way, China will stop the pell mell growth at any cost and do something about its RAGING POLLUTION. A rapidly rising GDP tends to lose its luster as a prize when you have 7 or the top 10 polluted cities in the world within your borders.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you do numbers, you'll find that if US and China continue to grow at average pace of past 5 yrs, China's per capita GDP will exceed that of US well before 2050. |
Which would be good for BOTH the US and CHINA.
Of course I seriously DOUBT that China will continue at the same pace it has been for the next 40 years. Somewhere along the way, China will stop the pell mell growth at any cost and do something about its RAGING POLLUTION. A rapidly rising GDP tends to lose its luster as a prize when you have 7 or the top 10 polluted cities in the world within your borders.
given that at present, 1/3 of all US highschool graduates are functionally illiterate
You believe this BS?
How about this?
http://www.literacy.ca/lac/campaign/letter.htm
QUOTE
When I think back
On all the crap I learned in high school
It's a wonder
I can think at all
And though my lack of education
Hasn't hurt me none
I can read the writing on the wall
On all the crap I learned in high school
It's a wonder
I can think at all
And though my lack of education
Hasn't hurt me none
I can read the writing on the wall
Arthur
So adoucette, so far what has been accomplished in our discourse is basically that, ever time (I) make a point that you cannot refute, you either do not answer to it, or mention it, (you ignore it) or you get sarcastic and/or make a lame attempt at derogatory mockery, AKA humor.
Your post above with the three lol's
Your style is not un-known to me as (I) have encountered such in other forums, with other posters, over time, and have little to do with people who proceed in such a manner as the only person that they seem to be successful with, is in the entertainment of themselves.
That noted, addressing the content of your postings, (I) find that this statement of yours:
(This reference, a subscription site: Frank J. Rahn, "Nuclear reactor", in AccessScience@McGraw-Hill, www.accessscience.com, DOI 10.1036/1097-8542.460100, last modified: August 14, 2002.)
says this about the heat:
Your post above with the three lol's
Your style is not un-known to me as (I) have encountered such in other forums, with other posters, over time, and have little to do with people who proceed in such a manner as the only person that they seem to be successful with, is in the entertainment of themselves.
That noted, addressing the content of your postings, (I) find that this statement of yours:
QUOTE
(SNIP) Like people who worry about the WASTE HEAT given off by the cooling system from a nuclear plant, ignoring the fact that the waste heat in the cooling water represents a small percentage of the energy produced by the power plant and that ALL of the energy produced by the power plant ENDS UP AS WASTE HEAT. (SNoP)
appears as unsupported by any reference, and the references that (I) can find tell me this:(This reference, a subscription site: Frank J. Rahn, "Nuclear reactor", in AccessScience@McGraw-Hill, www.accessscience.com, DOI 10.1036/1097-8542.460100, last modified: August 14, 2002.)
says this about the heat:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (SNIP) Like people who worry about the WASTE HEAT given off by the cooling system from a nuclear plant, ignoring the fact that the waste heat in the cooling water represents a small percentage of the energy produced by the power plant and that ALL of the energy produced by the power plant ENDS UP AS WASTE HEAT. (SNoP) |
appears as unsupported by any reference, and the references that (I) can find tell me this:
(This reference, a subscription site: Frank J. Rahn, "Nuclear reactor", in AccessScience@McGraw-Hill, www.accessscience.com, DOI 10.1036/1097-8542.460100, last modified: August 14, 2002.)
says this about the heat:
(SNIP) The net output of electricity of a nuclear plant is about one-third of the thermal output.
(SNoP)
(This reference, a subscription site: Frank J. Rahn, "Nuclear reactor", in AccessScience@McGraw-Hill, www.accessscience.com, DOI 10.1036/1097-8542.460100, last modified: August 14, 2002.)
says this about the heat:
(SNIP) The net output of electricity of a nuclear plant is about one-third of the thermal output.
(SNoP)
followed by:
Then, naturally(?) you attempt to dissuade from the meaning and impact of what (I) have tried to explain with this little diversionary tactic:
QUOTE
(SNIP) Roughly twice the amount of heat that has been converted in the turbine for the production of electric power is removed in the condenser for further rejection to the environment. (SNoP)
Adoucette that is a LOT of heat going into the water, not into the air to dissipate readily, but into the water where it is 'stored' (specific heat) for a lot longer.Then, naturally(?) you attempt to dissuade from the meaning and impact of what (I) have tried to explain with this little diversionary tactic:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (SNIP) Roughly twice the amount of heat that has been converted in the turbine for the production of electric power is removed in the condenser for further rejection to the environment. (SNoP) |
Adoucette that is a LOT of heat going into the water, not into the air to dissipate readily, but into the water where it is 'stored' (specific heat) for a lot longer.
Then, naturally(?) you attempt to dissuade from the meaning and impact of what (I) have tried to explain with this little diversionary tactic:
(SNIP) Like people who worry about the WASTE HEAT given off by the cooling system from a nuclear plant, ignoring the fact that the waste heat in the cooling water represents a small percentage of the energy produced by the power plant and that ALL of the energy produced by the power plant ENDS UP AS WASTE HEAT.
Particularly, when this misplaced concern is expressed on a PHYSICS forum.
Or when someone worries about the WASTE HEAT at all, but apparently ignores the fact that the Earth RECEIVES ~ 4.4 x 10^16 watts of energy from the sun each day.
Which is the equiv. of 440 MILLION MegaWatt power plants.
Which is ~ one such plant for each dozen people on the planet.
Sorry, but I tend to find such SILLYNESS, funny. (SNoP)
Then, naturally(?) you attempt to dissuade from the meaning and impact of what (I) have tried to explain with this little diversionary tactic:
(SNIP) Like people who worry about the WASTE HEAT given off by the cooling system from a nuclear plant, ignoring the fact that the waste heat in the cooling water represents a small percentage of the energy produced by the power plant and that ALL of the energy produced by the power plant ENDS UP AS WASTE HEAT.
Particularly, when this misplaced concern is expressed on a PHYSICS forum.
Or when someone worries about the WASTE HEAT at all, but apparently ignores the fact that the Earth RECEIVES ~ 4.4 x 10^16 watts of energy from the sun each day.
Which is the equiv. of 440 MILLION MegaWatt power plants.
Which is ~ one such plant for each dozen people on the planet.
Sorry, but I tend to find such SILLYNESS, funny. (SNoP)
So firstly not all of the waste heat from a nuclear power plant goes into water to be stored as some of the electrical output runs devices like air conditioners that dispel their heat into the air, secondly trying to compare it to the solar input on this planet is really well, your word SILLY as that is EXACTLY THE PROBLEM because we are ADDING IN (you do understand math, right? add) to that vast number that is the Solar input by whatever EXTRA we produce, and that is EXACTLY the problem that IS Global Warming.
That you are here, in a Physics forums, and DO NOT get that, do NOT get the reality that the waste heat from a nuclear reactor is ADDING INTO THE PROBLEM, and in a rather large way well....that speaks for itself.
So, in all, on that posting well, your post is rather specious, and mostly aimed at entertaining well, you.
Then the rest of your post:
Former President Clinton had passed a bill to legislate the Manufacture of trucks well, all diesel engines, such that they would all have catalytic converters on them, George Bush rescinded that legislation.
And BTW you Impressions do not make scientific fact, nor reliable reference, nor will it be acceptable as as anything other then just your Opinion, however valid or invalid it is.
That done, (I) am curious though, what exactly is it that you are defending yourself from? Certainly Not me, so is it The fact that the U.S. is a very big contributor to Green House gases? why? it is the truth, and most other countries contribute as well, so no one really gets 'off the hook' in this scenario, not a single county can say that it is doing all it can well, except maybe England as they have already met their Kyoto obligations and are reducing even further still.
Neat though, isn't it, America is being bested by England at reducing green house gas emissions.
So Other then perhaps a quick response to that, (Defending yourself from ...what?) if possible, could you please stick to the topic, (please, use salient facts and references as opposed to derision and mockery) 'Con Game' or NOT a 'Con Game'...clearly (I) say NOT a 'Con Game'!
You?
Oh yes a last notation on Nuclear reactors about there shut down: (same site as reference)
You mean the country that originally came up with the idea about Kyoto?
The one with ZIP manufacturing, ZIP population growth and a stagnant economy?
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard.../Kyoto-UK-1.jpg
vs say a country with a growing population and a vibrant economy
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...yoto-Canada.jpg
Yeah, that's neat.
Arthur
BTW your figure of 2/3 going into commercial use, you mean like jet fuel for flying Americans all over the world? or diesel fuel so American trucking can continue to deliver foodstuffs to American Grocery stores? from American Farmers who use the same Diesel fuel? or do you mean the tar that comes out at the bottom of the pile that are the road surfaces that you drive upon all over your country?
See:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec1_3.pdf
The transportation use is ~ 1/2 commercial, leaving Residential + personal transportation at ~ 1/3 of our energy use and Industrial, Commercial and Commercial transportation = ~ 2/3.
You just can't help yourself can you?
Arthur
That you are here, in a Physics forums, and DO NOT get that, do NOT get the reality that the waste heat from a nuclear reactor is ADDING INTO THE PROBLEM, and in a rather large way well....that speaks for itself.
So, in all, on that posting well, your post is rather specious, and mostly aimed at entertaining well, you.
Then the rest of your post:
QUOTE
(SNIP) The FACT is, WHERE CO2 is produced is ONLY one part of the story. WHAT it is produced for and WHO consumes the end product are by far MUCH MORE IMPORTANT questions.
As far as residential users go: I've spent quite a bit of time in other countries besides the US, this includes Canada, UK, Europe, Australia, Latin America and Southern America. My basic impression is that MIDDLE CLASS people in every country I've visited have ROUGHLY the SAME CARBON FOOTPRINT. They own one or two cars and usually drive at least one to work (UK and Europe seemed to have the highest usage of trains/busses).
They have a multi-bedroom - multi-bath house in a suburban setting.
The house has the same typical appliances: Refrigerator, Stove, Dish Washer, MicroWave, Clothes Washer, Clothes Dryer, Hot Water heater and (depending on climate) central heat & air. The house has the same typical electrical uses: TVs, Stereos, computers, vacuum cleaners, lights, alarm clocks. There REALLY is much more that makes us ALIKE in our energy uses than there are differences. (SNoP)
Refers to what? concerning Global Warming? that we are all responsible? (I) Have never questioned that, nor have (I) ever asserted or inferred nor implied anything to the contrary, as a matter of fact (I) had pointed out that My fellow Canadians are more polluting, on a per capita basis, then your fellow Americans, just that you are ten to one to us, and Canada cannot impose regulation upon industries outside of Canada, and as (I) learned in an example of wanting to see catalytic converters on all diesel trucks in Canada, the marketplace simply will not bear it competitively, as it is too small, and most of the effective legislation of such nature needs by consequence of that, come from U.S. Leadership, something that is, at this present time, sorely lacking AKA Mr. George Bush.As far as residential users go: I've spent quite a bit of time in other countries besides the US, this includes Canada, UK, Europe, Australia, Latin America and Southern America. My basic impression is that MIDDLE CLASS people in every country I've visited have ROUGHLY the SAME CARBON FOOTPRINT. They own one or two cars and usually drive at least one to work (UK and Europe seemed to have the highest usage of trains/busses).
They have a multi-bedroom - multi-bath house in a suburban setting.
The house has the same typical appliances: Refrigerator, Stove, Dish Washer, MicroWave, Clothes Washer, Clothes Dryer, Hot Water heater and (depending on climate) central heat & air. The house has the same typical electrical uses: TVs, Stereos, computers, vacuum cleaners, lights, alarm clocks. There REALLY is much more that makes us ALIKE in our energy uses than there are differences. (SNoP)
Former President Clinton had passed a bill to legislate the Manufacture of trucks well, all diesel engines, such that they would all have catalytic converters on them, George Bush rescinded that legislation.
And BTW you Impressions do not make scientific fact, nor reliable reference, nor will it be acceptable as as anything other then just your Opinion, however valid or invalid it is.
That done, (I) am curious though, what exactly is it that you are defending yourself from? Certainly Not me, so is it The fact that the U.S. is a very big contributor to Green House gases? why? it is the truth, and most other countries contribute as well, so no one really gets 'off the hook' in this scenario, not a single county can say that it is doing all it can well, except maybe England as they have already met their Kyoto obligations and are reducing even further still.
Neat though, isn't it, America is being bested by England at reducing green house gas emissions.
So Other then perhaps a quick response to that, (Defending yourself from ...what?) if possible, could you please stick to the topic, (please, use salient facts and references as opposed to derision and mockery) 'Con Game' or NOT a 'Con Game'...clearly (I) say NOT a 'Con Game'!
You?
Oh yes a last notation on Nuclear reactors about there shut down: (same site as reference)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (SNIP) The FACT is, WHERE CO2 is produced is ONLY one part of the story. WHAT it is produced for and WHO consumes the end product are by far MUCH MORE IMPORTANT questions. As far as residential users go: I've spent quite a bit of time in other countries besides the US, this includes Canada, UK, Europe, Australia, Latin America and Southern America. My basic impression is that MIDDLE CLASS people in every country I've visited have ROUGHLY the SAME CARBON FOOTPRINT. They own one or two cars and usually drive at least one to work (UK and Europe seemed to have the highest usage of trains/busses). They have a multi-bedroom - multi-bath house in a suburban setting. The house has the same typical appliances: Refrigerator, Stove, Dish Washer, MicroWave, Clothes Washer, Clothes Dryer, Hot Water heater and (depending on climate) central heat & air. The house has the same typical electrical uses: TVs, Stereos, computers, vacuum cleaners, lights, alarm clocks. There REALLY is much more that makes us ALIKE in our energy uses than there are differences. (SNoP) |
Refers to what? concerning Global Warming? that we are all responsible? (I) Have never questioned that, nor have (I) ever asserted or inferred nor implied anything to the contrary, as a matter of fact (I) had pointed out that My fellow Canadians are more polluting, on a per capita basis, then your fellow Americans, just that you are ten to one to us, and Canada cannot impose regulation upon industries outside of Canada, and as (I) learned in an example of wanting to see catalytic converters on all diesel trucks in Canada, the marketplace simply will not bear it competitively, as it is too small, and most of the effective legislation of such nature needs by consequence of that, come from U.S. Leadership, something that is, at this present time, sorely lacking AKA Mr. George Bush.
Former President Clinton had passed a bill to legislate the Manufacture of trucks well, all diesel engines, such that they would all have catalytic converters on them, George Bush rescinded that legislation.
And BTW you Impressions do not make scientific fact, nor reliable reference, nor will it be acceptable as as anything other then just your Opinion, however valid or invalid it is.
That done, (I) am curious though, what exactly is it that you are defending yourself from? Certainly Not me, so is it The fact that the U.S. is a very big contributor to Green House gases? why? it is the truth, and most other countries contribute as well, so no one really gets 'off the hook' in this scenario, not a single county can say that it is doing all it can well, except maybe England as they have already met their Kyoto obligations and are reducing even further still.
Neat though, isn't it, America is being bested by England at reducing green house gas emissions.
So Other then perhaps a quick response to that, (Defending yourself from ...what?) if possible, could you please stick to the topic, (please, use salient facts and references as opposed to derision and mockery) 'Con Game' or NOT a 'Con Game'...clearly (I) say NOT a 'Con Game'!
You?
Oh yes a last notation on Nuclear reactors about there shut down: (same site as reference)
(SNIP) These rates are important in reactor safety since 0.7% of the thermal power (2564 MW) of a 1000-MW(e) commercial nuclear power plant is approximately 18 MW of heat still being generated 1 day after the reactor is shut down. (SNoP)
Former President Clinton had passed a bill to legislate the Manufacture of trucks well, all diesel engines, such that they would all have catalytic converters on them, George Bush rescinded that legislation.
And BTW you Impressions do not make scientific fact, nor reliable reference, nor will it be acceptable as as anything other then just your Opinion, however valid or invalid it is.
That done, (I) am curious though, what exactly is it that you are defending yourself from? Certainly Not me, so is it The fact that the U.S. is a very big contributor to Green House gases? why? it is the truth, and most other countries contribute as well, so no one really gets 'off the hook' in this scenario, not a single county can say that it is doing all it can well, except maybe England as they have already met their Kyoto obligations and are reducing even further still.
Neat though, isn't it, America is being bested by England at reducing green house gas emissions.
So Other then perhaps a quick response to that, (Defending yourself from ...what?) if possible, could you please stick to the topic, (please, use salient facts and references as opposed to derision and mockery) 'Con Game' or NOT a 'Con Game'...clearly (I) say NOT a 'Con Game'!
You?
Oh yes a last notation on Nuclear reactors about there shut down: (same site as reference)
(SNIP) These rates are important in reactor safety since 0.7% of the thermal power (2564 MW) of a 1000-MW(e) commercial nuclear power plant is approximately 18 MW of heat still being generated 1 day after the reactor is shut down. (SNoP)
So even after they have been shut down, they are still giving off waste heat...and quite a bit of it, and INTO the water where it lasts a lot longer then airborne waste heat effects!
You are aware that the current records show an Oceanic temperature rise, and Rising, right?
You are aware that the current records show an Oceanic temperature rise, and Rising, right?
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 26 2007, 01:40 PM)
(SNIP) Yeah, but of course when the US burns the oil, with over 2/3s of it going into COMMERCIAL use, and makes a product that gets shipped back to Canada, the US gets the much LARGER hit. (SNoP)
BTW your figure of 2/3 going into commercial use, you mean like jet fuel for flying Americans all over the world? or diesel fuel so American trucking can continue to deliver foodstuffs to American Grocery stores? from American Farmers who use the same Diesel fuel? or do you mean the tar that comes out at the bottom of the pile that are the road surfaces that you drive upon all over your country?
Cause that 2/3 isn't the Hit you claim it to be, but that shouldn't surprise me as (I) have been learning your style, and distortion, or mis-appropriation of facts can be added to the list.....Right?
BTW Canada does the same thing just on a smaller scale so no claims of 'America bashing' please, cause here in Canada we produce slightly more simply based upon our Colder longer Canadian Climate.
You could help, cause clearly you do know things, just that.......
BTW your figure of 2/3 going into commercial use, you mean like jet fuel for flying Americans all over the world? or diesel fuel so American trucking can continue to deliver foodstuffs to American Grocery stores? from American Farmers who use the same Diesel fuel? or do you mean the tar that comes out at the bottom of the pile that are the road surfaces that you drive upon all over your country?
Cause that 2/3 isn't the Hit you claim it to be, but that shouldn't surprise me as (I) have been learning your style, and distortion, or mis-appropriation of facts can be added to the list.....Right?
BTW Canada does the same thing just on a smaller scale so no claims of 'America bashing' please, cause here in Canada we produce slightly more simply based upon our Colder longer Canadian Climate.
You could help, cause clearly you do know things, just that.......
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Mar 26 2007, 01:01 PM)
Depends entirely upon just what 'solutions' you are talking about, as not everything that is proposed will aid in the mitigation of our collective effect upon the Earth's systems.
In this case, Global Warming, mitigation is more what we can do as 'Solution' is simply not really there.
It requires changes to the ways we behave, energy wise and, especially, personally.
It interests me that the starter of this thread chose the words "Con Game" as in a real 'Con Game' someone is performing the 'Con' as to profit themselves enormously, yet in this case the only ones who would 'profit enormously' are all of us and our children, and future children.
So wheres the "Con"?
Are not the scientists who propose GW the one's who are the part of the "Con Game", if it is factious, due to the amount of money in grants that they will continue to receive because of an almost impossible task of disproving or proving something on such a large geological time frame that they would have to study it for the next few 10's of thousands of years to come to any kind of quantifiable conclusion?
In this case, Global Warming, mitigation is more what we can do as 'Solution' is simply not really there.
It requires changes to the ways we behave, energy wise and, especially, personally.
It interests me that the starter of this thread chose the words "Con Game" as in a real 'Con Game' someone is performing the 'Con' as to profit themselves enormously, yet in this case the only ones who would 'profit enormously' are all of us and our children, and future children.
So wheres the "Con"?
Are not the scientists who propose GW the one's who are the part of the "Con Game", if it is factious, due to the amount of money in grants that they will continue to receive because of an almost impossible task of disproving or proving something on such a large geological time frame that they would have to study it for the next few 10's of thousands of years to come to any kind of quantifiable conclusion?
One point, Mr. Parsons: Concerns about Global Warming are in no way based on thermal heat rejected by power generation. Earth can easily reject all of that to radiation very quickly PROVIDED there aren't an excess of IR radiation blocking "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere, which is where the problem arises.
QUOTE
Neat though, isn't it, America is being bested by England at reducing green house gas emissions.
You mean the country that originally came up with the idea about Kyoto?
The one with ZIP manufacturing, ZIP population growth and a stagnant economy?
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard.../Kyoto-UK-1.jpg
vs say a country with a growing population and a vibrant economy
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...yoto-Canada.jpg
Yeah, that's neat.
Arthur
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Mar 26 2007, 07:36 PM)
BTW your figure of 2/3 going into commercial use, you mean like jet fuel for flying Americans all over the world? or diesel fuel so American trucking can continue to deliver foodstuffs to American Grocery stores? from American Farmers who use the same Diesel fuel? or do you mean the tar that comes out at the bottom of the pile that are the road surfaces that you drive upon all over your country?
See:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec1_3.pdf
The transportation use is ~ 1/2 commercial, leaving Residential + personal transportation at ~ 1/3 of our energy use and Industrial, Commercial and Commercial transportation = ~ 2/3.
QUOTE
like jet fuel for flying Americans all over the world?
You just can't help yourself can you?
Arthur
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Mar 26 2007, 04:45 PM)
Former President Clinton had passed a bill to legislate the Manufacture of trucks well, all diesel engines, such that they would all have catalytic converters on them, George Bush rescinded that legislation.
Maybe you don't understand how our govt. works.
LAWS are passed by the HOUSE/SENATE.
A President can VETO a law at that time, but he can't come in LATER, and VETO a law passed by a previous president.
As far as Clean Diesel
See: http://policycouncil.nationaljournal.com/E...e9022ef28d6.htm
The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) was approved on August 2, 2005 as part of President Bush's authorization of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. DERA will provide $1 billion in funding for states and organizations to implement clean diesel retrofit (upgrading) programs for existing diesel fleets.
Arthur
Maybe you don't understand how our govt. works.
LAWS are passed by the HOUSE/SENATE.
A President can VETO a law at that time, but he can't come in LATER, and VETO a law passed by a previous president.
As far as Clean Diesel
See: http://policycouncil.nationaljournal.com/E...e9022ef28d6.htm
The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) was approved on August 2, 2005 as part of President Bush's authorization of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. DERA will provide $1 billion in funding for states and organizations to implement clean diesel retrofit (upgrading) programs for existing diesel fleets.
Arthur
Hi Adoucette and Mr. Robin Parsons, .001 et al,
A strategy of "denial of resource" will not work with Planet Earth. The problem is not really energy consumption. Sure the amount of energy is a real problem but that is because we have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over historical levels. This has led to greenhouse trapping of the waste energy. We can "vent" this energy if we reduce this fossil carbon in the atmosphere.
Of course many will offer the "solution" of reducing energy use as a "solution". This simply will not work with the emerging third world. They will not accept that a solution to a global crisis created by the west means abstinence by them and their peoples and a denial of a better life that we already enjoy. The solution is new forms of energy that do not produce fossil greenhouse gases. This does not mean refraining from the burning of carbon based fuels but it does mean that we need to lock carbon based fuels into a cycle of renewal. As long as we produce all the carbon based fuels from an environmental cycle, then there is no nett effect on the levels of carbon in the atmosphere. You can burn as much as you want without limit as long as we reduce the level of CO2 in the atmosphere to a level only about 20% above historical levels which is sustainable. It does not matter how much biofuels we make as long as we make it from biosources that we grow. This means that if we were to use some new form of energy to create biofuels from organic sources we have "balanced the books". No matter how much we burn of this fuel we will not contribute to global warming as long as we reduce the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
That only leads us to the alternatives I have spoken of before. What we need is an investment in advanced technology to substantially remove fossil carbon from the environment ... at least in a reasonable proportion like 60 to 80%. This would be excess to the environments ability to absorb this "new" carbon. The answer is to mostly remove all coal fired power stations and replace them with alternative "base load" sources. At this point in time this does not include wind farms or most solar collectors built on the scale we presently use. The full cost of ownership of these small scale "machines" usually is not taken into account to derive how much these techniques will actually cost. They have their use in isolated regions where cost is no problem... but cannot provide the base load for an advanced society. They only work part of the time. As I see it to provide base load we have Hydroelectric Power (in countries with adequate flowing water), the present Fission Power, existing Geothermal energy (from geothermal vents), tidal energy from certain places like the Bay of Fundy. Newer alternatives include the very near "Hot Rocks" Geothermal alternative, Fusion Reactors (such as the one coming on line for experiment in Hefei, China), actually tapping the heat of molten magma in some near surface situations, Cold Fusion (still a strong possibility), Aneutronic Fusion Reactors (Dr. Robert Bussard and the US Navy), Helium 3 Reactors (using Helium 3 mined from the Moon). I really like Robert Bussard's Alternative reactors which produce no neutrons and needs no heavy shielding and produces no radioactive waste.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2584496&C=america
"Hot Rocks" is also another one which can supply all the needs of a country without any of the problems.
Geodynamics "Hot Rocks" Technology
In the meantime we need to encourage Fuel Cells and the extended use of ethanol and or methanol which can be produced as biofuels. I have seen the reports from Spin Doctors in various industries why ethanol is not appropriate but it is all bunk with some smoke and mirrors thrown in. The big problem is not energy conservation and to deny resources to emerging powers in the world but dramatic reduction of greenhouse gases by reducing the amount of fossil carbon burning and the use of sources of energy that do not involve fossil carbon.
New sources of energy will revolutionize the way we do everything as much as the change from water mills to the Industrial Revolution. This time I hope with a bit of a better understanding of how we can do this sustainably. Given cheap energy we can grow all the food we need for all, inside hydroponic closed systems with a very small footprint on the surface of the earth. A stable food source will allow humans to plan to use resources far more efficiently. At the moment we are subject to the vagaries of climate and disease. A hydroponic center feeding major cities can be placed even in our deserts as long as we have large amounts of energy available. With energy even water can be condensed from out of the atmosphere or salt water can be purified and used.
Cheers
A strategy of "denial of resource" will not work with Planet Earth. The problem is not really energy consumption. Sure the amount of energy is a real problem but that is because we have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over historical levels. This has led to greenhouse trapping of the waste energy. We can "vent" this energy if we reduce this fossil carbon in the atmosphere.
Of course many will offer the "solution" of reducing energy use as a "solution". This simply will not work with the emerging third world. They will not accept that a solution to a global crisis created by the west means abstinence by them and their peoples and a denial of a better life that we already enjoy. The solution is new forms of energy that do not produce fossil greenhouse gases. This does not mean refraining from the burning of carbon based fuels but it does mean that we need to lock carbon based fuels into a cycle of renewal. As long as we produce all the carbon based fuels from an environmental cycle, then there is no nett effect on the levels of carbon in the atmosphere. You can burn as much as you want without limit as long as we reduce the level of CO2 in the atmosphere to a level only about 20% above historical levels which is sustainable. It does not matter how much biofuels we make as long as we make it from biosources that we grow. This means that if we were to use some new form of energy to create biofuels from organic sources we have "balanced the books". No matter how much we burn of this fuel we will not contribute to global warming as long as we reduce the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
That only leads us to the alternatives I have spoken of before. What we need is an investment in advanced technology to substantially remove fossil carbon from the environment ... at least in a reasonable proportion like 60 to 80%. This would be excess to the environments ability to absorb this "new" carbon. The answer is to mostly remove all coal fired power stations and replace them with alternative "base load" sources. At this point in time this does not include wind farms or most solar collectors built on the scale we presently use. The full cost of ownership of these small scale "machines" usually is not taken into account to derive how much these techniques will actually cost. They have their use in isolated regions where cost is no problem... but cannot provide the base load for an advanced society. They only work part of the time. As I see it to provide base load we have Hydroelectric Power (in countries with adequate flowing water), the present Fission Power, existing Geothermal energy (from geothermal vents), tidal energy from certain places like the Bay of Fundy. Newer alternatives include the very near "Hot Rocks" Geothermal alternative, Fusion Reactors (such as the one coming on line for experiment in Hefei, China), actually tapping the heat of molten magma in some near surface situations, Cold Fusion (still a strong possibility), Aneutronic Fusion Reactors (Dr. Robert Bussard and the US Navy), Helium 3 Reactors (using Helium 3 mined from the Moon). I really like Robert Bussard's Alternative reactors which produce no neutrons and needs no heavy shielding and produces no radioactive waste.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2584496&C=america
"Hot Rocks" is also another one which can supply all the needs of a country without any of the problems.
Geodynamics "Hot Rocks" Technology
In the meantime we need to encourage Fuel Cells and the extended use of ethanol and or methanol which can be produced as biofuels. I have seen the reports from Spin Doctors in various industries why ethanol is not appropriate but it is all bunk with some smoke and mirrors thrown in. The big problem is not energy conservation and to deny resources to emerging powers in the world but dramatic reduction of greenhouse gases by reducing the amount of fossil carbon burning and the use of sources of energy that do not involve fossil carbon.
New sources of energy will revolutionize the way we do everything as much as the change from water mills to the Industrial Revolution. This time I hope with a bit of a better understanding of how we can do this sustainably. Given cheap energy we can grow all the food we need for all, inside hydroponic closed systems with a very small footprint on the surface of the earth. A stable food source will allow humans to plan to use resources far more efficiently. At the moment we are subject to the vagaries of climate and disease. A hydroponic center feeding major cities can be placed even in our deserts as long as we have large amounts of energy available. With energy even water can be condensed from out of the atmosphere or salt water can be purified and used.
Cheers
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Mar 26 2007, 04:45 PM)
could you please stick to the topic, (please, use salient facts and references as opposed to derision and mockery) 'Con Game' or NOT a 'Con Game'...clearly (I) say NOT a 'Con Game'!
I AM sticking to the topic.
The topic of GW.
But I just respond to the posts themselves.
I could care less what the thread heading is about.
Lets see, though, since you asked: Is Manmade Global Warming a con game?
No, The extent of manmade Global Warming is a SCIENTIFIC QUESTION for which we don't yet know the answer.
The extent of FUTURE manmade Global Warming is a SCIENTIFIC QUESTION for which we don't yet know the answer.
The overall IMPACT of manmade Global Warming is a SCIENTIFIC QUESTION for which we don't yet know the answer.
Are politicians USING the specter of Global Warming to push other agendas? Yes.
Are these agendas all bad?
No.
Are these agendas all good?
No.
Is a WARMING WORLD an ALL BAD scenario?
No
Arthur
I AM sticking to the topic.
The topic of GW.
But I just respond to the posts themselves.
I could care less what the thread heading is about.
Lets see, though, since you asked: Is Manmade Global Warming a con game?
No, The extent of manmade Global Warming is a SCIENTIFIC QUESTION for which we don't yet know the answer.
The extent of FUTURE manmade Global Warming is a SCIENTIFIC QUESTION for which we don't yet know the answer.
The overall IMPACT of manmade Global Warming is a SCIENTIFIC QUESTION for which we don't yet know the answer.
Are politicians USING the specter of Global Warming to push other agendas? Yes.
Are these agendas all bad?
No.
Are these agendas all good?
No.
Is a WARMING WORLD an ALL BAD scenario?
No
Arthur
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Mar 26 2007, 04:45 PM)
Former President Clinton had passed a bill to legislate the Manufacture of trucks well, all diesel engines, such that they would all have catalytic converters on them, George Bush rescinded that legislation.
???
Note the Chicken/Egg problem. The NEW cleaner diesels (with converters) couldn't be manufactured until the FUEL was cleaned up. Apparently the Clinton era legislation (late 2000) gave the fuel manufacturers until 2006 to get MOST of the fuel cleaned up. Apparently that time table was met. The engine manufactures still have 3 more years to start producing the engines/exhaust system that can take FULL advantage of this new cleaner fuel.
http://www.climateark.org/articles/2001/1st/whbaclru.htm
March 1, 2001
By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS
WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 — The Bush administration has decided to let stand regulations imposed by President Bill Clinton that are intended to reduce substantially the pollution caused by diesel fuel and engines, officials said today.
In a victory for environmentalists, Christie Whitman, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said she would support the regulations, which were drafted by Clinton officials in a last-minute flurry of new rules and then put on hold when President Bush took office in January.
Mrs. Whitman said the new standards would eventually cut pollution from heavy-duty trucks and buses by 95 percent and reduce the sulfur content of highway diesel fuel by 97 percent. The move, she said, would prevent an estimated 8,300 premature deaths and tens of thousands of cases of bronchitis each year.
"The Bush administration determined that this action not be delayed in order to protect public health and the environment," Mrs. Whitman said. "I look forward to working with state and local governments to meet their air quality goals as well as with citizens and businesses to ensure that diesel trucks and buses remain a viable and important part of the nation's economy."
Under the new regulations, diesel producers will be required to virtually eliminate sulfur from the fuel. Sulfur produces soot and clogs up a vehicle's catalytic converter, the device that removes other pollutants. With the removal of sulfur, manufacturers of diesel engines will be required to incorporate the sophisticated pollution-control devices that are standard equipment in cars.
The changes will be phased in. About 80 percent of all diesel fuel must be virtually sulfur-free by 2006, the rest by 2010. Engine manufacturers will have until 2010 to complete their modifications.
Also:
http://www.dieselforum.org/no_cache/newsarticle/article/618/
October 17, 2006
TheCarConnection.comNew Clean Diesel Fuel Is Here
By Joseph Szczesny
New, cleaner diesel fuel - with sulfur reduced 97 percent compared to the fuel it will eventually replace - is opening the door to a new generation of diesel vehicles in the United States.
The new ultra-low sulfur fuel went on sale Sunday and has replaced 80 percent of the old diesel formulation at stations across the nation. With its relatively low sulfur content - 15 parts per million (ppm) of sulfur compared with 500 ppm found in the old fuel - the new fuel is a significant milestone in making diesels as clean and popular as they are in European markets.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Stephen Johnson said in a conference call with reporters this week that the fuel rollout represented "the single greatest achievement in clean fuel since lead was removed from gasoline more than 25 years ago."
"Diesel vehicles have always been 20 to 40 percent more energy efficient than comparable gasoline engines," said Schaeffer. "With the switch to cleaner fuel, consumers will see more fuel-efficient diesel cars, pickups, and SUVs on showroom floors in the years to come." Schaeffer added that new 2007 diesel trucks will emit just one-sixtieth the soot exhaust of one produced in 1988.
...
Starting in January, makers of the heavy-duty diesel engines will roll out engine systems equipped with exhaust-scrubbing technologies that work in tandem with the cleaner fuel to reduce soot and smog-forming nitrogen oxide emissions.
But, Kassel says, automakers looking for ways to boost fuel economy will also benefit from clean diesel. The Diesel Technology Forum estimates diesel engines can boost fuel economy by between 20 percent and 40 percent over gas engines while offering nearly equivalent emissions.
For right now, the new diesel fuel is available, but vehicles that take full advantage of it aren't yet on the market. Recent diesels from the likes of VW and Mercedes-Benz need significant re-engineering to meet tougher diesel-emissions rules and to work with the new clean diesel. Mercedes-Benz is aiming for 2008 to sell its new diesels in all 50 states, and is trying to meet the new standards for diesel emissions by treating exhaust emissions with a urea spray system called Bluetec.
Arthur
???
Note the Chicken/Egg problem. The NEW cleaner diesels (with converters) couldn't be manufactured until the FUEL was cleaned up. Apparently the Clinton era legislation (late 2000) gave the fuel manufacturers until 2006 to get MOST of the fuel cleaned up. Apparently that time table was met. The engine manufactures still have 3 more years to start producing the engines/exhaust system that can take FULL advantage of this new cleaner fuel.
http://www.climateark.org/articles/2001/1st/whbaclru.htm
March 1, 2001
By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS
WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 — The Bush administration has decided to let stand regulations imposed by President Bill Clinton that are intended to reduce substantially the pollution caused by diesel fuel and engines, officials said today.
In a victory for environmentalists, Christie Whitman, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said she would support the regulations, which were drafted by Clinton officials in a last-minute flurry of new rules and then put on hold when President Bush took office in January.
Mrs. Whitman said the new standards would eventually cut pollution from heavy-duty trucks and buses by 95 percent and reduce the sulfur content of highway diesel fuel by 97 percent. The move, she said, would prevent an estimated 8,300 premature deaths and tens of thousands of cases of bronchitis each year.
"The Bush administration determined that this action not be delayed in order to protect public health and the environment," Mrs. Whitman said. "I look forward to working with state and local governments to meet their air quality goals as well as with citizens and businesses to ensure that diesel trucks and buses remain a viable and important part of the nation's economy."
Under the new regulations, diesel producers will be required to virtually eliminate sulfur from the fuel. Sulfur produces soot and clogs up a vehicle's catalytic converter, the device that removes other pollutants. With the removal of sulfur, manufacturers of diesel engines will be required to incorporate the sophisticated pollution-control devices that are standard equipment in cars.
The changes will be phased in. About 80 percent of all diesel fuel must be virtually sulfur-free by 2006, the rest by 2010. Engine manufacturers will have until 2010 to complete their modifications.
Also:
http://www.dieselforum.org/no_cache/newsarticle/article/618/
October 17, 2006
TheCarConnection.comNew Clean Diesel Fuel Is Here
By Joseph Szczesny
New, cleaner diesel fuel - with sulfur reduced 97 percent compared to the fuel it will eventually replace - is opening the door to a new generation of diesel vehicles in the United States.
The new ultra-low sulfur fuel went on sale Sunday and has replaced 80 percent of the old diesel formulation at stations across the nation. With its relatively low sulfur content - 15 parts per million (ppm) of sulfur compared with 500 ppm found in the old fuel - the new fuel is a significant milestone in making diesels as clean and popular as they are in European markets.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Stephen Johnson said in a conference call with reporters this week that the fuel rollout represented "the single greatest achievement in clean fuel since lead was removed from gasoline more than 25 years ago."
"Diesel vehicles have always been 20 to 40 percent more energy efficient than comparable gasoline engines," said Schaeffer. "With the switch to cleaner fuel, consumers will see more fuel-efficient diesel cars, pickups, and SUVs on showroom floors in the years to come." Schaeffer added that new 2007 diesel trucks will emit just one-sixtieth the soot exhaust of one produced in 1988.
...
Starting in January, makers of the heavy-duty diesel engines will roll out engine systems equipped with exhaust-scrubbing technologies that work in tandem with the cleaner fuel to reduce soot and smog-forming nitrogen oxide emissions.
But, Kassel says, automakers looking for ways to boost fuel economy will also benefit from clean diesel. The Diesel Technology Forum estimates diesel engines can boost fuel economy by between 20 percent and 40 percent over gas engines while offering nearly equivalent emissions.
For right now, the new diesel fuel is available, but vehicles that take full advantage of it aren't yet on the market. Recent diesels from the likes of VW and Mercedes-Benz need significant re-engineering to meet tougher diesel-emissions rules and to work with the new clean diesel. Mercedes-Benz is aiming for 2008 to sell its new diesels in all 50 states, and is trying to meet the new standards for diesel emissions by treating exhaust emissions with a urea spray system called Bluetec.
Arthur
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Mar 26 2007, 04:45 PM)
trying to compare it to the solar input on this planet is really well, your word SILLY as that is EXACTLY THE PROBLEM because we are ADDING IN (you do understand math, right? add) to that vast number that is the Solar input by whatever EXTRA we produce, and that is EXACTLY the problem that IS Global Warming.
That you are here, in a Physics forums, and DO NOT get that, do NOT get the reality that the waste heat from a nuclear reactor is ADDING INTO THE PROBLEM, and in a rather large way well....that speaks for itself.
NOPE,
As I pointed out the Daily Solar Input is the equiv. of 440 MILLION Nuclear plants.
There are a TOTAL of 430 Nuclear Power Plants in operation.
Thus the Sun gives us a MILLION times as much energy each day (waste heat + electricity).
So this represents an increase of a MEASLY ~ 0.0001% of the Solar Energy.
Which is why it is considered an INSIGNIFICANT contributer to Global Warming.
Arthur
That you are here, in a Physics forums, and DO NOT get that, do NOT get the reality that the waste heat from a nuclear reactor is ADDING INTO THE PROBLEM, and in a rather large way well....that speaks for itself.
NOPE,
As I pointed out the Daily Solar Input is the equiv. of 440 MILLION Nuclear plants.
There are a TOTAL of 430 Nuclear Power Plants in operation.
Thus the Sun gives us a MILLION times as much energy each day (waste heat + electricity).
So this represents an increase of a MEASLY ~ 0.0001% of the Solar Energy.
Which is why it is considered an INSIGNIFICANT contributer to Global Warming.
Arthur
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13...m-with-science/
Here's a hilarious take on much of the grounding of the contratians.
Here's a hilarious take on much of the grounding of the contratians.
Hi adoucette,
QUOTE (adoucette+)
As I pointed out the Daily Solar Input is the equiv. of 440 MILLION Nuclear plants.
There are a TOTAL of 430 Nuclear Power Plants in operation.
Thus the Sun gives us a MILLION times as much energy each day (waste heat + electricity).
So this represents an increase of a MEASLY ~ 0.0001% of the Solar Energy.
Which is why it is considered an INSIGNIFICANT contributer to Global Warming.
There are a TOTAL of 430 Nuclear Power Plants in operation.
Thus the Sun gives us a MILLION times as much energy each day (waste heat + electricity).
So this represents an increase of a MEASLY ~ 0.0001% of the Solar Energy.
Which is why it is considered an INSIGNIFICANT contributer to Global Warming.
Which is exactly my point. The issue is not the energy output but the Greenhouse Effect. Reduce the Greenhouse Effect and we can address the problem. Everyone seems to not understand what is the important aspect of this here... We are trying to preserve our ecosystem, not use less energy. I couldn't care less about energy efficiency, it is energy trapping that is the important factor.
... Click to enlarge...
The yellow background expanded scale as the insert is the real problem. you can see the amount of atmospheric CO2 has increased from about 150 ppm in about 1800AD to around 375 ppm today .... with a bullet!! The problem is the trapped heat due to the Greenhouse Effect. You can easily see that from this chart the levels of CO2 have never reached present levels in the last 400 ky. Recent ice cores have pushed this figure back to at least 2 my. you also need to add in the effects of other "Greenhouse gases" such as methane which are also at historically high levels too.
And here is why....
... Click to enlarge...
Cheers
... Click to enlarge...
The yellow background expanded scale as the insert is the real problem. you can see the amount of atmospheric CO2 has increased from about 150 ppm in about 1800AD to around 375 ppm today .... with a bullet!! The problem is the trapped heat due to the Greenhouse Effect. You can easily see that from this chart the levels of CO2 have never reached present levels in the last 400 ky. Recent ice cores have pushed this figure back to at least 2 my. you also need to add in the effects of other "Greenhouse gases" such as methane which are also at historically high levels too.
And here is why....
... Click to enlarge...
Cheers
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 27 2007, 09:41 AM)
See:http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec1_3.pdfThe transportation use is ~ 1/2 commercial, leaving Residential + personal transportation at ~ 1/3 of our energy use and Industrial, Commercial and Commercial transportation = ~ 2/3.
You just can't help yourself can you?
Arthur
Clearly the emboldened is about you, as you now have changed your original story of '2/3 to manufacturing (that gets exported) ergo: 'the U.S taking the (full) hit on that one' is what you just proved is Bunk.
So why would (I) need 'help myself' when you are doing it for me?
BTW Good job, thanks!
You just can't help yourself can you?
Arthur
Clearly the emboldened is about you, as you now have changed your original story of '2/3 to manufacturing (that gets exported) ergo: 'the U.S taking the (full) hit on that one' is what you just proved is Bunk.
So why would (I) need 'help myself' when you are doing it for me?
BTW Good job, thanks!
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Mar 28 2007, 07:49 AM)
Clearly the emboldened is about you, as you now have changed your original story of '2/3 to manufacturing (that gets exported) ergo: 'the U.S taking the (full) hit on that one' is what you just proved is Bunk.
So why would (I) need 'help myself' when you are doing it for me?
BTW Good job, thanks!
I didn't change the story.
READ IT AGAIN, SLOWER THIS TIME.
A PRODUCT is NOT EQUAL TO ALL PRODUCTS & the amount of CO2 released from using the oil is greater than producing the oil.
Arthur
So why would (I) need 'help myself' when you are doing it for me?
BTW Good job, thanks!
I didn't change the story.
READ IT AGAIN, SLOWER THIS TIME.
A PRODUCT is NOT EQUAL TO ALL PRODUCTS & the amount of CO2 released from using the oil is greater than producing the oil.
Arthur
QUOTE (.001+)
Are not the scientists who propose GW the one's who are the part of the "Con Game", if it is factious, due to the amount of money in grants that they will continue to receive because of an almost impossible task of disproving or proving something on such a large geological time frame that they would have to study it for the next few 10's of thousands of years to come to any kind of quantifiable conclusion?
That hardly qualifies as a 'Con game' as the rewards are not large enough, (They are salaries) nor is the reality that they would need to study 'something' as the grant monies would be there anyways, better study something worthwhile and potentially lifesaving to humanity.
Adoucette your comparing England to Canada when (I) have clearly noted both, the rise in Canada's outputs, and WHY, production of Oil for U.S. markets ...Canadian too.
Your evasive and obfuscational.
Back in 1999 (I) had the pleasure of driving a Ford Louisville truck with a 475 engine, manufactured in 97 as it was a 98 model year truck, it had a catalytic converter on it as a result of legislation that Clinton passed as (I) had watched Him and Mr. Gore on television heralding that Bill that required all diesels to be so fitted.
GW Bush and Company (His party) had that particular Bill rescinded (Never said Vetoed, you did) when he took office.
Apparently you are the one who doesn't know how your governance works as a President can have a piece of legislation rescinded if he can get enough others in the legislature and/or senate to go along with it.
As for this:
That hardly qualifies as a 'Con game' as the rewards are not large enough, (They are salaries) nor is the reality that they would need to study 'something' as the grant monies would be there anyways, better study something worthwhile and potentially lifesaving to humanity.
Adoucette your comparing England to Canada when (I) have clearly noted both, the rise in Canada's outputs, and WHY, production of Oil for U.S. markets ...Canadian too.
Your evasive and obfuscational.
Back in 1999 (I) had the pleasure of driving a Ford Louisville truck with a 475 engine, manufactured in 97 as it was a 98 model year truck, it had a catalytic converter on it as a result of legislation that Clinton passed as (I) had watched Him and Mr. Gore on television heralding that Bill that required all diesels to be so fitted.
GW Bush and Company (His party) had that particular Bill rescinded (Never said Vetoed, you did) when he took office.
Apparently you are the one who doesn't know how your governance works as a President can have a piece of legislation rescinded if he can get enough others in the legislature and/or senate to go along with it.
As for this:
QUOTE (adoucette+)
(SNIP) No, The extent of manmade Global Warming is a SCIENTIFIC QUESTION for which we don't yet know the answer.
The extent of FUTURE manmade Global Warming is a SCIENTIFIC QUESTION for which we don't yet know the answer.
The overall IMPACT of manmade Global Warming is a SCIENTIFIC QUESTION for which we don't yet know the answer. (SNoP)
As (I) had, (once again) Already pointed out, it is a scientific question that we CANNOT await the Outcome of as to then decide as, by then it will be too late to affect it's outcome.
Yet another dodge.
then this
BS
You can't put a Catalytic Converter on a Diesel engine that is burning HIGH SULFUR FUEL. It just clogs up the converter.
The change HAD TO BE, change the FUEL FIRST, THEN CHANGE the engines.
So fine, YOU made the claim, YOU provide some evidence that they were putting Catalytic Converters on regular production Diesel engines back in 97.
Consider that: The Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements was not signed by President Clinton until December 2000.
The purpose of the rulemaking is to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) from heavy-duty highway engines and vehicles that use diesel fuel. The new rule requires refiners and importers to produce highway diesel meeting a 15 parts per million (ppm) maximum requirement, starting June 1, 2006;
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ulsd/
I showed evidence that the Republicans DIDN'T pass legislation that rescinded that Clinton order. You made the claim, YOU provide some evidence that they did so.
PS, you can ONLY rescind a law by passing a NEW LAW, so when you say "Bush rescinded that legislation" you are not only technically inaccurate you are also implying powers to the president that he doesn't have. If you mean the Republicans did this, then say so as the terms are NOT synonymous.
Arthur
The extent of FUTURE manmade Global Warming is a SCIENTIFIC QUESTION for which we don't yet know the answer.
The overall IMPACT of manmade Global Warming is a SCIENTIFIC QUESTION for which we don't yet know the answer. (SNoP)
As (I) had, (once again) Already pointed out, it is a scientific question that we CANNOT await the Outcome of as to then decide as, by then it will be too late to affect it's outcome.
Yet another dodge.
then this
QUOTE (adoucette+)
(SNIP) Which is why it is considered an INSIGNIFICANT contributer to Global Warming. (SNoP)
One grain of sand is an insignificant contribution to a 'pile of sand' that it makes, but it amasses to a significant pile if enough grains of sand are employed.
You once again have missed the simplified mathematics of thermal Addition as we are, by the Adding method approaching (Or at now?) 1% of solar.
And you've Ignored completely the reality of the Significant difference between heating air and heating water.....
Sulfur free diesel fuel tends to ruin diesel fuel pumps, as the sulfur is a lubricant.
Good Elf like your 'alternates' suggestions
You once again have missed the simplified mathematics of thermal Addition as we are, by the Adding method approaching (Or at now?) 1% of solar.
And you've Ignored completely the reality of the Significant difference between heating air and heating water.....
Sulfur free diesel fuel tends to ruin diesel fuel pumps, as the sulfur is a lubricant.
Good Elf like your 'alternates' suggestions
QUOTE
Back in 1999 (I) had the pleasure of driving a Ford Louisville truck with a 475 engine, manufactured in 97 as it was a 98 model year truck, it had a catalytic converter on it as a result of legislation that Clinton passed as (I) had watched Him and Mr. Gore on television heralding that Bill that required all diesels to be so fitted.
GW Bush and Company (His party) had that particular Bill rescinded (Never said Vetoed, you did) when he took office.
Apparently you are the one who doesn't know how your governance works as a President can have a piece of legislation rescinded if he can get enough others in the legislature and/or senate to go along with it.
GW Bush and Company (His party) had that particular Bill rescinded (Never said Vetoed, you did) when he took office.
Apparently you are the one who doesn't know how your governance works as a President can have a piece of legislation rescinded if he can get enough others in the legislature and/or senate to go along with it.
BS
You can't put a Catalytic Converter on a Diesel engine that is burning HIGH SULFUR FUEL. It just clogs up the converter.
The change HAD TO BE, change the FUEL FIRST, THEN CHANGE the engines.
So fine, YOU made the claim, YOU provide some evidence that they were putting Catalytic Converters on regular production Diesel engines back in 97.
Consider that: The Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements was not signed by President Clinton until December 2000.
The purpose of the rulemaking is to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) from heavy-duty highway engines and vehicles that use diesel fuel. The new rule requires refiners and importers to produce highway diesel meeting a 15 parts per million (ppm) maximum requirement, starting June 1, 2006;
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ulsd/
I showed evidence that the Republicans DIDN'T pass legislation that rescinded that Clinton order. You made the claim, YOU provide some evidence that they did so.
PS, you can ONLY rescind a law by passing a NEW LAW, so when you say "Bush rescinded that legislation" you are not only technically inaccurate you are also implying powers to the president that he doesn't have. If you mean the Republicans did this, then say so as the terms are NOT synonymous.
Arthur
One MILLIONTH is One MILLIONTH.
No matter HOW you do the math.
PLEASE explain what the SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between heating AIR and heating WATER is.
Arthur
No matter HOW you do the math.
QUOTE
And you've Ignored completely the reality of the Significant difference between heating air and heating water.....
PLEASE explain what the SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between heating AIR and heating WATER is.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 28 2007, 09:58 AM)
One MILLIONTH is One MILLIONTH.
No matter HOW you do the math.
PLEASE explain what the SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between heating AIR and heating WATER is.
Arthur
Please read, or re-read all of what (I) have posted as (I) choose not to repost it.
And if you add one millionth to itself, one million times (6.5 BILLION people) you can easily get to the one point, but apparently repetitive indication of the nature of Additions still seems to escape you.
Silly you,
No matter HOW you do the math.
PLEASE explain what the SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between heating AIR and heating WATER is.
Arthur
Please read, or re-read all of what (I) have posted as (I) choose not to repost it.
And if you add one millionth to itself, one million times (6.5 BILLION people) you can easily get to the one point, but apparently repetitive indication of the nature of Additions still seems to escape you.
Silly you,
ONE MILLIONTH represents the TOTAL ENERGY OUTPUT OF ALL THE NUCLEAR PLANTS ON THE PLANET as compared to the DAILY SOLAR ENERGY the planet receives.
So how do you get off adding ONE MILLION to itself ONE MILLION TIMES?
Arthur
So how do you get off adding ONE MILLION to itself ONE MILLION TIMES?
Arthur
So I take it you have no explanation for what you claim is a SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between heating AIR and heating WATER?
Arthur
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 28 2007, 09:50 AM)
BS
You can't put a Catalytic Converter on a Diesel engine that is burning HIGH SULFUR FUEL. It just clogs up the converter.
The change HAD TO BE, change the FUEL FIRST, THEN CHANGE the engines.
So fine, YOU made the claim, YOU provide some evidence that they were putting Catalytic Converters on regular production Diesel engines back in 97.
Consider that: The Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements was not signed by President Clinton until December 2000.
The purpose of the rulemaking is to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) from heavy-duty highway engines and vehicles that use diesel fuel. The new rule requires refiners and importers to produce highway diesel meeting a 15 parts per million (ppm) maximum requirement, starting June 1, 2006;
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ulsd/
I showed evidence that the Republicans DIDN'T pass legislation that rescinded that Clinton order. You made the claim, YOU provide some evidence that they did so.
PS, you can ONLY rescind a law by passing a NEW LAW, so when you say "Bush rescinded that legislation" you are not only technically inaccurate you are also implying powers to the president that he doesn't have. If you mean the Republicans did this, then say so as the terms are NOT synonymous.
Arthur
Which is why every six months of so you need to dis-assemble the converter and wash it out in a solvent, as they have been using them in the mining industries, underground wheel loaders, for years....and years....and yeears.
As for 'adding' (to the million'th degree) try looking at a little bit bigger picture then what you are so venomously attempting to defend - Nuclear Power plants, and realize that they simply ADD into everything Else that is generating HEAT.
As for the difference between heating water and air, go take a course in Chemistry!
P.S. you only need add one millionth, one thousand times to get to the Sun's 1% point-mark.
you said this:
You just make this Sh!T up, don't you?
What does some Clinton era law have to do with Underground Wheel loaders and the mining industry?
Arthur
You can't put a Catalytic Converter on a Diesel engine that is burning HIGH SULFUR FUEL. It just clogs up the converter.
The change HAD TO BE, change the FUEL FIRST, THEN CHANGE the engines.
So fine, YOU made the claim, YOU provide some evidence that they were putting Catalytic Converters on regular production Diesel engines back in 97.
Consider that: The Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements was not signed by President Clinton until December 2000.
The purpose of the rulemaking is to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) from heavy-duty highway engines and vehicles that use diesel fuel. The new rule requires refiners and importers to produce highway diesel meeting a 15 parts per million (ppm) maximum requirement, starting June 1, 2006;
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ulsd/
I showed evidence that the Republicans DIDN'T pass legislation that rescinded that Clinton order. You made the claim, YOU provide some evidence that they did so.
PS, you can ONLY rescind a law by passing a NEW LAW, so when you say "Bush rescinded that legislation" you are not only technically inaccurate you are also implying powers to the president that he doesn't have. If you mean the Republicans did this, then say so as the terms are NOT synonymous.
Arthur
Which is why every six months of so you need to dis-assemble the converter and wash it out in a solvent, as they have been using them in the mining industries, underground wheel loaders, for years....and years....and yeears.
As for 'adding' (to the million'th degree) try looking at a little bit bigger picture then what you are so venomously attempting to defend - Nuclear Power plants, and realize that they simply ADD into everything Else that is generating HEAT.
As for the difference between heating water and air, go take a course in Chemistry!
P.S. you only need add one millionth, one thousand times to get to the Sun's 1% point-mark.
you said this:
QUOTE (adoucette+)
(SNIP) Yeah, but of course when the US burns the oil, with over 2/3s of it going into COMMERCIAL use, and makes a product that gets shipped back to Canada, the US gets the much LARGER hit. (SNoP)
That states that the U.S. is using 2/3 of it's oil for "commercial" and that that, is trade your exporting to Canada...or don't you understand what you type?
As for proving it, Sorry no time machine nor Internet time to go look for the television footage that (I) saw.
As for proving it, Sorry no time machine nor Internet time to go look for the television footage that (I) saw.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Mar 28 2007, 04:51 PM)
P.S. you only need add one millionth, one thousand times to get to the Sun's 1% point-mark.
Yes (I) erred it is ten thousand (10,000) times not one thousand (1,000)
Yes (I) erred it is ten thousand (10,000) times not one thousand (1,000)
(I) will assume that you already have heard that water vapor is a potent green house gas, that is because of its heat capacitance....so here is the rest.....
Under the headings of:
Chemistry: Physical chemistry
Physics: Thermodynamics and heat
cited from this article:
Peter A. Rock, "Chemical thermodynamics", in AccessScience@McGraw-Hill, http://www.accessscience.com, DOI 10.1036/1097-8542.128200, last modified: February 7, 2007.
--------------
For example, the molar heat capacities of solid (s), liquid (l), and gaseous (g) water over the temperature range 250 to 500 K (-23 to 227°C or -10 to 440°F) are as follows:
H2O(s): Cp=37.66 J - K^-1 - mol^-1
H2O(l): Cp=75.32 J - K^-1 - mol^-1
H2O(g): Cp=30.54 J - K^-1 - mol^-1
+(1.03 x 10^-2) J - K^-1 - mol^-1
The roughly twofold greater heat capacity of liquid water relative to solid or gaseous water results from the fact that a substantial (roughly half) part of the heat input to liquid water is absorbed in breaking the hydrogen bonds between water molecules in liquid water (about 20 kJ/mol).
----------------------
So it is a Substantial Difference when you heat water as opposed to when you heat 'air' as it tends to stick around just all that much longer, and that affects the adding-losing cycles that are the natural dissipation of heat that has had been going on on this planet for centuries before we began any substantive additions, as we are now doing, into that system.
Under the headings of:
Chemistry: Physical chemistry
Physics: Thermodynamics and heat
cited from this article:
Peter A. Rock, "Chemical thermodynamics", in AccessScience@McGraw-Hill, http://www.accessscience.com, DOI 10.1036/1097-8542.128200, last modified: February 7, 2007.
--------------
For example, the molar heat capacities of solid (s), liquid (l), and gaseous (g) water over the temperature range 250 to 500 K (-23 to 227°C or -10 to 440°F) are as follows:
H2O(s): Cp=37.66 J - K^-1 - mol^-1
H2O(l): Cp=75.32 J - K^-1 - mol^-1
H2O(g): Cp=30.54 J - K^-1 - mol^-1
+(1.03 x 10^-2) J - K^-1 - mol^-1
The roughly twofold greater heat capacity of liquid water relative to solid or gaseous water results from the fact that a substantial (roughly half) part of the heat input to liquid water is absorbed in breaking the hydrogen bonds between water molecules in liquid water (about 20 kJ/mol).
----------------------
So it is a Substantial Difference when you heat water as opposed to when you heat 'air' as it tends to stick around just all that much longer, and that affects the adding-losing cycles that are the natural dissipation of heat that has had been going on on this planet for centuries before we began any substantive additions, as we are now doing, into that system.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Mar 28 2007, 05:36 PM)
So it is a Substantial Difference when you heat water as opposed to when you heat 'air' as it tends to stick around just all that much longer, and that affects the adding-losing cycles that are the natural dissipation of heat that has had been going on on this planet for centuries before we began any substantive additions, as we are now doing, into that system.
As far as energy goes a BTU is a BTU is a BTU.
Don't mater if those BTUs heat AIR, WATER or ROCK.
While the temp rise per unit of mass per BTU might vary between them, the amount of ENERGY that is gained by a given mass per BTU absobed is the same.
Arthur
As far as energy goes a BTU is a BTU is a BTU.
Don't mater if those BTUs heat AIR, WATER or ROCK.
While the temp rise per unit of mass per BTU might vary between them, the amount of ENERGY that is gained by a given mass per BTU absobed is the same.
Arthur
QUOTE
Which is why every six months of so you need to dis-assemble the converter and wash it out in a solvent, as they have been using them in the mining industries, underground wheel loaders, for years....and years....and yeears.
You just make this Sh!T up, don't you?
What does some Clinton era law have to do with Underground Wheel loaders and the mining industry?
Arthur
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Mar 28 2007, 04:45 PM)
Yes (I) erred it is ten thousand (10,000) times not one thousand (1,000)
How do you justify compounding this amount of energy even 200 times, let alone 10,000 times?
Arthur
How do you justify compounding this amount of energy even 200 times, let alone 10,000 times?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 28 2007, 08:18 PM)
As far as energy goes a BTU is a BTU is a BTU.
Don't mater if those BTUs heat AIR, WATER or ROCK.
While the temp rise per unit of mass per BTU might vary between them, the amount of ENERGY that is gained by a given mass per BTU absobed is the same.
Arthur
SWOOOOSH the sound of the realities of thermal capacitance flying right over adoucettes' head, as he has missed it completely
Then, in his next post, he sees himself in the mirror....
lol, I like that idea.
Don't mater if those BTUs heat AIR, WATER or ROCK.
While the temp rise per unit of mass per BTU might vary between them, the amount of ENERGY that is gained by a given mass per BTU absobed is the same.
Arthur
SWOOOOSH the sound of the realities of thermal capacitance flying right over adoucettes' head, as he has missed it completely
Then, in his next post, he sees himself in the mirror....
QUOTE (adoucette+)
(SNIP) You just make this **** up, don't you? (SNoP)
.....and to answer your question, No! followed by proof that that is you? that little notation that you made about me being 'wrong about your parents', totally MADE UP!
Thereafter he seems to not know how to add yet so, why continue.
Thereafter he seems to not know how to add yet so, why continue.
You apparently lost touch with reality some time ago.
Adios.
Arthur
Adios.
Arthur
QUOTE
Take all those bums on the street and put them in a big gym.....generators
lol, I like that idea.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 29 2007, 08:43 AM)
You apparently lost touch with reality some time ago.
Adios.
Arthur
And you clearly express a self reflective mind.
Adieu.
Mr. Robin Parsons (AKA MRP)
Adios.
Arthur
And you clearly express a self reflective mind.
Adieu.
Mr. Robin Parsons (AKA MRP)
So now that we can realize and see that it is a sliver of water (The Oceans) coupled with an atmosphere of slight water vapor that coats the outside of the planets face, acting as its' temperature moderator or insulation, is it possible to heat this insulation and not raise the temperature of the house upon which it sits?
The very idea of cold is 'retentive' in the depths of the Oceans, whereas 'Millions' of year ago (Paleoclimatology) the earth was covered by Shallow Oceans, now we have 'depth of Ocean' that is a storehouse of cold to a greater degree (Pun intended) then has even been known of, as affective of the Climatological 'model' to a degree that well, do we really know it yet? or understand it just yet? or are we still learning?
Should we await the result of this occurrence, or should we act to mitigate the clear input we are affecting the House with?
The very idea of cold is 'retentive' in the depths of the Oceans, whereas 'Millions' of year ago (Paleoclimatology) the earth was covered by Shallow Oceans, now we have 'depth of Ocean' that is a storehouse of cold to a greater degree (Pun intended) then has even been known of, as affective of the Climatological 'model' to a degree that well, do we really know it yet? or understand it just yet? or are we still learning?
Should we await the result of this occurrence, or should we act to mitigate the clear input we are affecting the House with?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.