Global Warming ?

Something a lot of people outside the USA don't seem to get, is that we need our cars, or some facsimile (and there's the rub). The USA is too big otherwise, and we've long since left the agreian culture behind where people were born, lived, and died all within 1 mile of the same location.

Our local rapid area transit isn't bad in Dallas, but I can go to the store, buy a trunk of groceries, and come back in under 20 minutes. The same trip by bus I'm lucky if I can do it under an hour, and I'm limited to what I can carry. This is not a strong inducment to change on a personal level.

There are technologies that haven't been properly tapped. The Stirling engine is an external combustion engine that has terrific fuel economy, it was experimented with during the 1970's gas crunch. The reason it failed is it has a lousy throttle mechanism, in other words it doesn't change speeds well. By being an external combustion engine it doesn't care what it burns (which mean bio fuels can be used as well as petrolium), and the fire chamber can be designed for more complete combustion of whatever, so the side emissions go down. I haven't understood why something like this hasn't been tried on a hybrid vehicle, where the lack of speed control isn't really an issue.

There are lots of options in terms of technology, but status quo usually favors no change until it is forced upon us, either by legistlation or physics. People with money don't want to rock the boat, unless they are the ones with the next big idea.

 

meah........screw global warming. Global warming's just the popular thing right now. In a few months they'll be trying to scare us with something else. Besides it isn't like there's a whole lot we can do to stop it. Course of nature you know.

 

Prometheos, thankyou for intelligent comment. Finally somebody gets it! I think you comment was right on the $MONEY$.

 

Read this letter from the PETA to Al Gore
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm

 

This is a political issue. Better public transportation would lessen the use of cars. Not talking about the weekly grocery trip where you fill your trunk. But think of how many people ride alone in a huge car to work every day! If people had an easy, convenient and cheap way to go to work by public transportation, they would.

So something that has worried scientists for 20-30 years will be over in a few months? Thank you, that is very reassuring! rolleyes

 

What about the Tylenol scare, or the killer bees that were supposed to come up from Texas, Bird Flu, West Nile virus. All these have had scientists worried before and every now and then something will be brought up in the media to remind us of the threat. I'm not saying it'll be over in a few months, I'm simply saying it'll be a few months before there is some other terrifying thing hogging the media.

 

After living out in the country for 20+ years, I can hear you on this one.

But, another interesting thing to note is that the electric car predates the internal combustion engine. (Link) In fact, for a time, it held land speed and distance records.

If we're to believe what this article says, it died out due to lack of technology that we have since made HUGE advancements in.
Transistors in our Core2Duo processors have lengths of 65nm, or even 45nm for the penryn core.
Rectifiers are in every PSU we put out.

And yet, I always seem to get the impression that the technology is still in its infancy, that we don't yet have the ability to make it practical. I think we as geeks should know better what we are capable of technology-wise.

 

I'm certain you mean the reports on Al Gore's personal energy consumption. (The link is about Barack Obama??? PETA is the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals???)

http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

This is the link contains the report on his energy usage.

What they don't tell you is that:

1. Gore uses 100% green energy (http://www.tva.gov/greenpowerswitch/)
2. He also purchases carbon offsets that reduce his net C02 emissions to zero.

(Link)

Oh yeah, and the Tenessee Center For Policy Reseach! HA! Here's their Incorporation info:

And this link contains their 2005 IRS return.

The group's 2005 tax return claims $104,908 in revenues and $76,673 in expenses, including roughly $5,000 for meals, $6,000 for "marketing," $3,000 for travel, $3,000 for legal expenses - and only $18 for research materials and $24 for printing and publications.

So you have a supposed non-partisan "policy research" organization spending only $42 for publications and research materials as thousands are spent on food, travel and unspecified marketing and legal expenses. That doesn't sound like a legitimate non-partisan research institute to me.

 

I guess I'm a little rusty on my geography, didnt realise that the USA is the only large country on the planet.
Guess that is something the rest of us in our small second-rate countries will never understand rolleyes

 

Well, they wouldn't want you to concentrate too much on something of real importance would they ?
All they do is 'change the channel' - so to speak.

The issues are still there, its just the 'ratings' arent.
Not talking about something does not make it disappear.

 

The problem with public transportation is it is slow. My drive to work in each direction is 10 miles every day, it would involve about 3 transfers, and would take about 1 1/2 hours each direction at least. With a car it takes 25 minutes, tops. If there were a staight line shot with a mimimum of wasted time then I would use the alternative, but my time is important to me. Frankly, I don't see a way around it, but I am open to sugestions.

Cars are seductive in their convienence. I suspect we'll have to either figure a way around them or improve them.

A deliberately obtuse statement, China and Russia are at least as big, but most folks in OZ live on the edges, or do I have my geography wrong? England (and the rest of the countries in Europe) are about the size of one of our larger states. Europe is trying to unify, but has a ways to go IMO. The fact it, their aren't too many countries as developed as the USA with the highway infrastructure it has covering the land area it does, with the population spread out as it does. I don't happen to agree OZ is second rate (you said it, not I). I would love to live in Austrailia, what's not to like? I might have trouble getting used to summer in December.

All the above reasons is also why the USA is one of the big resource gobblers in the world. If we can solve these problems here, it will likely apply else where.

Funny you should mention that, in my neighborhood killer bees and West Nile virus are a big deal. People in Texas are dying from them very year. Fortunately, killer bees seem to have hit a climate wall, lets hope it holds, and I suspect AIDs will stay ahead of West Nile for a while. Lets pray that Bird Flu never materializes, the numbers from the Spanish variety should scare any reasonable person, we don't want a repeat, ever.

If you dismiss every threat, then you will be blindsided. If you examine threats reasonably, and take precautions, they they may be no big deal.

If we ignore or pretend that humans can't screw up the planet then we'll be blindsided. I hope we're smarter than that. The up side, quoting one of my favorite authors, is hard times for the individual is good times for the race.

 

Countries By Size:

1 Russia----------17,075,200 km2
2 Canada---------9,984,670 km2
3 United States---9,826,630 km2
4 China-----------9,596,960 km2
5 Brazil-----------8,511,965 km2
6 Australia--------7,686,850 km2
7 India------------3,287,590 km2
8 Argentina-------2,766,890 km2
9 Kazakhstan-----2,717,300 km2
10 Sudan---------2,505,810 km2

I think the U.S. gets a lot of flak due to the fact that the rest of the world is so heavily influenced by their culture. Its funny to watch television in Canada and Mexico, as it is almost entirely American content, and native content is EASILY distinguishable. (lol Mexican soap operas)

That, and the U.S. likes to assert itself as a global leader. Right now, they're "bringing democracy" to the Middle East, and the President is known as "the leader of the free world".

Is it not fair to expect them to set an example?

The attitude of powerlessness is what concerns me most. Yes, you can't make a global change like flipping a light switch. It takes time, and you have to start somewhere! I think automobiles are an excellent place to start, as their emissions dwarf that of power plants. That, and we have the technology to obsolete them.

But again, ExxonMobil has access to the Bush administration....

 

once again, I'm not saying the issues will go away. I'm saying it'll be something else covered by the media. It changes all the time. I know these issues won't just simply go away, I'm saying that there'll be something new to worry about in a few months.

 

This has hardly popped up in the last 20 to 30 years. It's probably most of you are not old enough to realize it goes back further then that. Although this is simply a dramatization they had a pretty good idea as to the affects back in the 50's.
By the way, cigarettes aren't addicting either!

circa 1958

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg

 

The global warming issue has been around for years, I doubt it'll go away, especially if other bad things happen. The antartic ice shelf has started sliding into the ocean, and is accelerating. If this trend continues we can expect abrupt rises in ocean levels with little or no warning. You don't think this will get people excited?

People are associating cause and effect prematurly in many cases, but some of the effects will raise up and slap us in the face if we stay in denial.

Putin, Russia's premier, was quoted as Global Warming might be good thing for Siberia. Wonder what he'll say if the permafrost melts and a lot of structures (including railroads) start sinking into the mud, and it all turns into a swamp. This might not be a realistic senario yet, but it could be in the cards.

 

You may be living on an island Bill

 

Those were ALL very serious threats and some still are. Many people lost their lives due to the bees attacking in large tenacious droves,Tylenol not even containing poison WILL damage your liver, West Nile virus is only one of the life threating disease spread by mosquitoes, so on and so forth. I don't believe it's all senseless scares, a lot is information to keep you alive.
(they say the bridge is out, aw hell I'll chance it anyway) rolleyes

 

LOL

Yeah, I heard that the construction workers were in a heated debate over the validity of that sign!

 

Most people can't see the woods for the trees, and I use the term ironically.


...Of course you realise that a cow produces more air pollution than five automobiles. Yep, you'd be better off killing a cow, than donating your car to the scrapheap and buying a pushbike.

This article is a bit rhetorical, but it gets its point across. Worth the read.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/01/11/do1101.xml

There are a lot of articles about emissions from cattle, especially, but most are rather lengthy PDF files, so I’ll leave it up to anyone so disposed to look up for themselves.

I'm the first to agree we need to do all we can to minimise pollution, but let's make sure we're focussing on real causes and real issues. Global warming is certainly worthy of serious study, but before we go changing our lifestyles, let's also be sure we are not just pandering to other people's politically motivated drum.

I was an Industrial Chemist for twenty years, so I know what industrial pollution is, and the less we have the better, for sure. Use less power and save money, by all means - but don't think you're doing the earth a favour, because it has little, if anything to do with it.

I will say, the appalling lack of adequate public transport, especially where I am, doesn't really induce anyone not to drive their own vehicle to work. Be great to have free electric buses, like in some parts of Europe.

 

I've seen some HORRENDOUS pictures of this happening...sadly, I can't seem to find the link, but here's a picture of the 'drunk trees' effect caused by melting permafrost:

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Environmental/Drunk%20Trees.gif

http://www.grida.no/prog/polar/bsc/pict/siberia3.jpg http://www.netpilot.ca/geocryology/img/Building%20on%20permafrost.jpg

 

Those pictures are really bad. I do like the raisin bran sun in the top picture though lol.

TWO SCOOPS!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

There are huge dairy (think it's dairy) farms here, I mean huge. The county turned down moving many thousand more here recently. Another problem here is Los Angeles has been dumping waste sludge (from sewer plants) here for years. That also was voted down BUT if you can believe this LA has a law suite to over turn the decision. Who says your vote counts confused every time the people vote on something it's taken back to court declared unconstitutional. By the time a decision is reached they've amassed enough money to compensate. oh it just makes me angry! As for vehicles, some men would remain virgins (forever) without their ride.

 

One thing I don't get about permafrost. By definition, it's premanantly frozen. That means that it has to remain frozen given natural fluctuations in the temperature over the course of the year.

Ergo, it has to be very cold. If a degree or two warming causes it to melt, then it was never permafrost.

Like I said, this is not an opinion as such, just something I don't quite "get".

If anyone can enlighten me I'd be grateful.

 

A single degree change globally is not homogeneous. It's just an average, but that change can cause some major fluxiuations in specific areas. Some areas might even get colder on the average, as ocean currents change and wind flow patterns shift. Putin was right about one thing, some areas will benifit, at other areas expense.

If that variation can cause a larger seasonal change, where areas that did not experience seasonal changes start actually having a summer worth noting, then there will be thaws. I remember reading that it already happening in a limited way, but I don't remember where. If the trend is accelerating then it is one of the senarios is permafrost melt. This isn't one of the worst things that could happen, but people will notice the effects.

There are a lot of booby traps that can cause sudden and abrupt change throughout the globe. I remember reading about several trillion tons trapped in the icewater slush above Siberia. In the scifi book "Mother of All Storms" this methane was release by a nuclear strikes, causing the global temperature to raise around 5 degrees, and the secretary general, who authorized the strike, saying something equivalent to "Did I do that?".

Personally I think we're going to find out what life is like with sea levels up around 5 - 10 feet, maybe more. The Dutch will have a lot of old tech to sell to the rest of us, when their not plugging all their new holes that is.

I'm glad someone like Mada_Milty is here, I'm lousey at remembering where I read something, and not too hot at doing research either.

 

In a rural area I don't think the few cars driving around causes major problems, it is when it reaches the scales we see around the world's more urban areas where the effect is so massive it will have an impact on nature. And that is where public transportation could make a huge difference.

In Stockholm we tried car tolls around the city centre for a year. Driving inside the zone dropped by 25% at first, then went up a bit. Reason why it went up was probably because the public transportation wasn't up for the task. Also the expense on public transportation. It isn't very expensive, but if you have to have a car, and on top of that you have to pay 60 euro a month to use the bus, then taking the car becomes more tempting. Pisses me off so much that the politicians who enforced this attempt didn't take it the full step out, making public transportation free and functional. Then we would have seen changes worth talking about!

(Not only from the aspect of global warming of course. Scandinavia has a huge rate of asthma and allergies, probably because of the long winters weakening our immune system, and people in the city suffer more because of the pollution.)

This would be an excellent opportunity to go back to the sea! Someone please remind me why we left it in the first place?

 

If you stop eating them, you won't have to farm them.
Another problem solved

 

I just about have, for a while at least. I'm on a health kick thing again to trim down a little. So I'm down to about one small meal a day at this time. Meat is on the 'occasional' list. But one still has dairy products.

 

It's your business of course, Phantom, but it would be much healthier to eat more than that, and make the meals high in fruits and vegetables. Mainly vegetables. Throw in small amounts of lean protein and complex carbs and that would be the healthiest of all. And don't forget the fish.

What's more, doing that would probably help you keep off any weight you lose.

Have you thought about adapting that "reverse" diet I keep hearing about?

 

I'm on a seefood diet, what I see I eat.

I also want to reduce the number of cattle, one steak at a time.

It is possible that a lot of the dire predictions will not come to pass. Being a pessimest, I figure it'll be worse than we ever dreamed. I'd like to see some new tech just to ..., well heck, I like new tech. If it is somehow reducing the impact on the planet so much the better.

I'd love to put real solar electric panels on my roof, and use it to offset my AC during the hot Texas heat. Just a wish mind you.

 

This recently aired on uk TV and is now available on google video

The great global warming swindle

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=global+warming+swindle&hl=en

 

The Great Channel four swindle
http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/09/the-great-channel-four-swindle/

 

People are new compared to the age of Earth. We are learning, sometimes wrong, as any fields of science, medical included. I heard where they had the wrong dinosaur skull on a skeleton for 50 years in a museum. In my opinion there is no expert on much of anything. Speculation is the key word.

 

The poster does not agree or disagree with the views and opinions show in the movie and was posted for educational puposes 'scratch that entertainment purposes' only and to get link finding points from BCgray

 

Hey and you got them Rikky, even downloaded the vid to show some others, that like to spew the media line. Sometimes when I listen to the feverish pitch of those that claim its all Man's fault for anything and everything, I am reminded of the crowds in Munich that cheered on Hitler, and the documentary that interviewed some of them after the war.............and all they could say was "We didn't know"..............Yea right

 

Yes, interesting article and a handy link - thanks for that one.

It's ironic that people, including some of pro - "it's all our fault" posts, I've seen on this very forum, try and relate anyone who does not accept that climate change (which is real enough) is created and caused by our own activities - to the anti-smoking hysteria debate. Ironic, because the same kind of politically motivated lies get bandied about as supposed facts (i.e. excess smoking of ciggies isn't a good idea - to "it's deadly in any quantity and you're going to kill and injure anyone who gets near you.). Could it be than filling cigarettes with low grade straw and ‘junk’ fillers is more profitable?

We get similar manipulation of the masses propaganda in the unleaded fuel debate. Which is lower in lead, but actually worse for air pollution. But it's rarely pointed out that the real reason is lower production costs of lower octane fuel - ergo more profits to the oil companies and Govts.

We tend to think manipulation and control of the masses only occurs in places like Communist states, or Nazi Germany. Nope - we get very similar 'ideological grooming' occurring in our so-called civilised western nations.

To get a balanced input of information on any given topic always takes more work than just accepting the word of our political leaders, or whoever shouts the loudest. I don't mind if people wish to take the lazy/easy path of regurgitating opinions, but please spare us the arrogance that it is "proven facts".

Let’s go for a healthy body and environment by all means, but be aware of the political and profit marketing manipulation that almost always goes with it. Basically, we would be very unwise to ignore our impact on the environment and health issues, but it's also unwise to merely accept, often plotically and financially motivated information as indisputable facts.

 

Thanks Phantom, you said what I was feeling much more eloquently than I did

 

Sorry, I may be interpreting this incorrectly.
But, it appears that you are implying that there is financial motivation behind the belief that we are a major cause of global warming.

I'm not sure what anyone has to gain (economically) from the viewpoint.
I have not heard of any multi-national sustainable power companies.
Some parts of the world do receive more sun than others, others more wind;
but I somehow doubt they are trying to drag down the fossil fuel conglomerates. confused

 

shanemail I really think you should watch the Link Rikky provided in it's entirety, failing that just contact your Australian Government and find out just how much is being spent on "The Global Warming Crisis". Here in Canada our new government just pledged another Billion Dollars to funding studies that study "Global Warming". "Global Warming" is a Mega Billion dollar "Industry".:cry

 

Only got dialup, I wont be watching it at all unless it is shown here at a later date.

We just pledged another Billion dollars in tax credits to the mining and oil sector. (only joking ??)

Pledging money to 'studies' is not the same as pledging money to actually make a difference.
It sounds more like politicians trying to secure more votes.
Which is something most countries have in common.

The link I posted, I found to be quite effective at discrediting yet another (supposedly) corrupt media viewpoint.
There is no point in a 'scientific' show being broadcast, if it has no scientific basis or expertise.

I dont believe this thread is really accomplishing anything at the moment.
The majority of people will already have their minds made up on the larger subjects (what could be larger ?) like this one.
My mind is clearly closed on the subject, but in all honesty I am not alone there.

A link is submitted - 50% agree
A rebuttal link is submitted - thats the other 50% taken care of

I believe what I believe based on the rapid changes I have seen in the environment and society in the short time I have been on this planet.

While I have not seen 'Rikky's video'
Neither have I seen Al Gores movie either.
As I am not a sheep, I do not need shepherding.
I make my own mind up

I would imagine it is easier to be more Apathetic, say its someone elses problem and pretend it will go away just like that.

But it just doesnt work like that for me.

This thread was originally based on the question
Are We Responsible ?

I couldn't care less,
the question I am more concerned with is
Are We Responsible Enough To Try And Do Something About It ?

Anyway, there is enough Ranting & Raving going on here lately

 

There are ALWAYS politics and money involved when it comes to both power production and political type of power. Al Gore is a politician. He failed to gain the Presidency, he has now found another political drum to beat.

Surely you jest. Nearly all the power companies are huge multinationals. You live in Western Australia like I do, right? Both Synergy Corp. (for household power, and Alinta Gas are owned by overseas multinationals. Since it's been privatised, they operate on a Stock Share basis. If we can afford to by enough shares, we get the power. If we can't afford it, then we get the so-called 'power shortages'. It's all about making money and control - serving the public is purely consequential.

The whole global warming issue is very unclear as to the actual causes. That's why our own Prime Minister did not sign the Kyoto Agreement.http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/02/16/1108500136426.html

It's not the CHANGES in environmental climate that are in dispute. You measure temps., rainfalls, wind, etc. and it is such and such a measurement on that day, location and time. It's whether the changes are unnatural, and especially wether we, as individuals are, in part the cause. Because if we're not, then we have to ask ourselves the question, "Why are we being fed highly emotive misinformation?".

Basing opinions on what you've experienced is pretty limited, when you're talking about 12, 100 and 15,000 year cycles. rolleyes

I'm not out to take sides, or prove any particular side of the debate. I was playing 'The Devil's Advocate', to an extent. But I have had enough experience in industry and chemical fields to know the kind of economic and political games the public get's played for. If some can't see that, I'm not bothered, but as Mr.T would say, "Pitty da fools!" (Yes, that bit is a joke. ).

Spending millions of dollars, or going into public hysteria to change something that we don't even know if it needs changing, don't make lick of sense to me, unless I'm missing something here.

All that being said, I believe we should take pollution reduction and caring for the environment seriously. Just be aware of the red herrings and distractions.

 

They are not what I call "sustainable" power companies
Coal & Gas are finite power sources

I was under the impression that was one of the many reasons he is known as
Johnny Brown-nose, he is a follower not a leader

Its a big planet, cant dispute that.
But there are 6.5 billion of us
Does anyone honestly believe that we have not had at the very least some negative effects on the climate ?

Thats the whole point rolleyes
Western Antarctica, Greenland etc melt, sea levels rise & temperatures increase on a time frame that shouldnt be significantly noted in one mans lifetime.

Watching TV and reading newspapers is all the experience that is needed
to realise how much people have been and still are controlled by propaganda.
In this day and age I would believe it is easier to misinform people towards apathy than towards action.

The general consensus now appears to be that change needs to happen.
But, because the scientists have been proven to have been corrupt in the recent past; the stigma stays with them.
An absolute master-stroke
Delay action by bribing the scientists and in the process discredit them for the future.
End result: confusion - more time wasted

Couldnt agree more on that one

 

LoL, I thought I'd get a reaction over my last post.

As I said, I'm pushing any particular barrow here, but simply illustrating that things are not as black and white as some noisy minorities would have us believe. In order to justify changing my lifestyle, I'll need a lot more than manipulated stats and scare mongering. If I'm going to save energy, it'll be because I want to reduce my power bill, not because I think it will save the polar ice caps and the planet.

People are free to think what they want, and have any lifestyle they wish. But if they want to tell me I need to change this and that, and pass judgement, without any argument that holds water, then they can bite my butt, sorry. rolleyes

No argument about the "Johnny Brown-nose", bit. Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him. Doesn't detract from his points, though.

So what's 'sustainable', then? Solar? We are still many years away from that. Nuclear? Well, we've missed the boat, listened to the Greenies on that one by about 50 years. Geothermal, tidal, wind? All good supplements (I have solar hot water myself), but all that won't go near supplying our energy needs. If by sustainable you mean permanent, then everything is finite.

When people can supply hard evidence that I'm melting the ice caps, or whatever, let me know. (Which is TOTALLY different from wether global climate is changing or not, we all know it is) Until then, the whole debate is largely rhetorical.

 

I don't think it matters if we are the cause or whether it's just nature doing what it's always done, (Who caused the last ice age?) because we will never in the foreseeable future reverse global warming. Not all the countries are going to do enough to make a difference.

There's too many people on the earth, we've over bred. If an animal species had bred and populated to the extent that we have we would've culled them. We've raped this planet like the greedy people that we are with disregard for any other species and the planet.

We just keep cutting down the trees and building more houses, oops sorry, skyscrapers full of units to squeeze the maximum amount of people in the smallest possible space to make way for our ever growing population.

And now for my rant...