| Author | Message | ||
     P_squared |
And the time to start thinking about it is now. I'm ok with the "thinking about it" part. It's the "we have to do something NOW" part when we can't even determine actual root cause that peeves me. Our history is littered with unintended consequences. I'd rather we have a scientifically SOUND idea of the consequences of any proposed action BEFORE we actually undertake it. Silly, I know. Just call me old fashioned that way. As for Green Peace, that's a whole nother conversation which would get Backfired very quickly. | ||
| Spiderman |
KINDA SOUNDED LIKE YOU NEEDED SOME Yeah the lower night time temps have nothing to do with it because they are not there, because of all that darn global warming... | ||
| Hexangler |
At what point will CO2 management equate to harm reduction IYHO? | ||
| Hexangler |
I'd rather we have a scientifically SOUND idea of the consequences of any proposed action BEFORE we actually undertake it. From the looks of things scientific, this was not the rational when we took on fossil fuels. | ||
| P_squared |
That's the conundrum Hex. How do you manage C02 if it appears to be primarily driven by solar activity? | ||
| P_squared |
From the looks of things scientific, this was not the rational when we took on fossil fuels. Not true. Fossil fuels are more efficient & cleaner than burning wood to provide the same energy. As technology and our abilities advance, so will our efficiencies in fuels. Or are you advocating we all revert to the stone age in regards to energy use & consumption? | ||
| Hexangler |
Spidey, P_cubed, I hope those silly "junk scientists" are wrong, and I have no doubt that some portion of humanity will survive to see the future. What we accomplish along the way is all we can control. Population, CO2 exhausting humans and human activity, will reach its zenith faster than we can dig our way out of our own sh!t. So, why bother trying to change our destiny, in fact, some will find it easier to argue with all their might against some evidence, unwilling to uncover more. However, turning a blind eye to some evidence--things we have seen numerous times in our little controlled experiments, IMHO, is not responsible action. | ||
| Diablobrian |
not to mention how much cleaner it is than the coal that fueled the industrial revolution. Fossil fuels were a step forward at the time. I'm all for researching new and better energy sources, but they need to perform better than the current norm, unlike most current alternative energy sources do. | ||
| Hexangler |
Fossil fuels are definitely more efficient at liberating CO2 into our atmosphere! What has been accomplished in this "free" energy phase of humanity? Greater energy dependency! and more CO2. | ||
| Hexangler |
I wonder what Erik Buell has written in his 200 year plan for motorcycle energy resources...and the practical application there of... | ||
| P_squared |
Population, CO2 exhausting humans and human activity, will reach its zenith faster than we can dig our way out of our own sh!t. I've heard this similar line of reasoning used to support eugenics. Don't tell me you subscribe to that "scientific" belief as well? The rest of that post reads like a longer worded version of, "The science is settled." Again, I'm not against pursuing actual research and new technologies. I'm against pursuing policies based upon discredited research. As for the "Fossil fuels are definitely more efficient at liberating CO2 into our atmosphere!" post, you're starting to sound like a religious zealot IMO. We, man, account for ~0.28% of the total greenhouse gases, including our "liberated CO2". We, man, keep working towards making our current energy more efficient as well as finding alternative sources. Why is that so "wrong"? Because I'm not willing to give the head shaman all the power & money he wants when he doesn't practice what he preaches? Cut back on the emotional slant & let's focus on the facts. That's what folks discussing topics based on science do, contrary to the example set by Albert. | ||
| Blake |
Warm homes in Winter and cool homes in Summertime. Improved quality of life, improved health. I agree that we shouldn't ignore evidence, in fact I demand that we not ignore any evidence. The problem is that too many are WAY too willing to ignore that which is troubling to their agenda. You for instance have done so repeatedly in this discussion. Just answer one brutally simple question for me. What do you reckon is more significant wrt the average temperature of the planet, an additional 0.005% (50 ppm) of CO2, a colorless odorless gas, in the atmosphere, or a 0.15% increase in the sun's solar radiation? Or are you willing to ignore the evidence that the sun's radiant output is increasing at a rate of 0.05% per decade since the late 1970's in favor of your own particular opinion on the issue? | ||
| Hexangler |
I'd rather have a conundrum than a dilemma. | ||
| Blake |
What kind of idiot would ignore the fact that the sun is a major factor influencing the Earth's average temperature? | ||
| Sifo |
CO2 exhausting humans and human activity I'd like to hear more about how CO2 is going to exhaust humans. Please expand. | ||
| P_squared |
Sifo, I'd rather he didn't personally. Smacks of eugenics to me. Now let me think. Who was a strong proponent of eugenics? Oh, that's right, Hitler, our current "Science Czar" John Holdren and I'm sure there's plenty more stellar examples out there. Smacks of "science without morality" to me. | ||
| Sifo |
Well eugenics would be the cure as I understand it. I'm simply interested in this version of the illness. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
liberating CO2 into our atmosphere! Were, per se, would you say all this liberated CO2 came from originally? | ||
| Spiderman |
What kind of idiot would ignore the fact that the sun is a major factor influencing the Earth's average temperature?  | ||
| Hexangler |
oh, maybe from volumes of methane and ethane as naturally occurred ON AND BELOW THE EARTHS SURFACE! SEE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(moon) | ||
| Blake |
Where do you imagine that methane came from? Hey! Al Gore is giving BadWeB the thumbs up! Cool. I used to like Al. | ||
| Diablobrian |
So the methane and ethane have always been subsurface and we're releasing it? Just trying to follow the logic. Global cooling in the 70's-80's, global warming in the 90's-00's and the latest theories are predicting cooling. which "real truth" are we debating again? Which is most "inconvenient" right now? There are peer reviewed publishers on both sides and this has been argued into the ground....decades ago. | ||
| Hexangler |
Here's some more silliness in today's science news: Warming Of Arctic Current Over 30 Years Triggers Release Of Methane Gas http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/09081 4103231.htm Stating: ...Furthermore, methane dissolved in the seawater contributes to ocean acididfication. and: Antarctic Glacier Thinning At Alarming Rate http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/09081 4100105.htm This one does say something you might like: Scientists believe that the retreat of glaciers in this sector of Antarctica is caused by warming of the surrounding oceans, though it is too early to link such a trend to global warming. I also wonder where the water goes from the combustion reaction. We know the CO2 is going into the atmosphere, creating acid rain, and yes, ACIDIFYING the Oceans (ADDING carbonic acid to them). But what about the extra billions of tons of H2O that we have created in the last hundred years? I assume that if you take it out of the ground, you must be replacing the subterranean reservoirs with something (probably water and steam), or else the crust would sink in those localized areas. If the crust sinks, and the oceans fill up, what then? Waterworld? | ||
| Hexangler |
So the methane and ethane have always been subsurface and we're releasing it? It's possible, when we look at planetary research like what we are finding on Saturn's moon Titan, and its predominantly nitrogen atmosphere. We really don't know where the underground stuff came from. Eons of vegetation is still only one theory. It could also be part of a grand physical process unrelated to life. I've been studding yeast lately, zymurgy, a simple (fungi) organism like that may have produced all the CO2 in our atmosphere, or maybe it was indeed a spontaneous (or organic?) combustion of methane and ethane with oxygen. | ||
| Gregtonn |
...I've been studding yeast lately, zymurgy, a simple (fungi) organism like that may have produced all the CO2 in our atmosphere... Translation: Hex has been humping fungi and beer is causing global warming. Who'da thunk it? G | ||
| Hexangler |
It'd be a tough choice between my Buell and my "Beer"! Now that's a dilemma!  (Message edited by hexangler on August 16, 2009) | ||
| Fast1075 |
I think I just passed some methane...do tacos under pressure degrade to methane??  | ||
| Hexangler |
Which brings up another question: If fermentation is required to make ethanol, like in corn fuel for vehicles, how much CO2 is released into the atmosphere from the fermentation process as well as from the process of combustion after the fuel is created? Is the WHOLE ethanol process (creation + combustion) cleaner than "fossil" fuel? | ||
| Diablobrian |
You know a few millenia ago a life form came into being that released a byproduct that was corrosive to the other life forms in existence at the time. Causing what would be termed today mass extinction and environmental destruction. In the end though life adapted and thrived on the substance the caused so much havoc. If you guessed I'm talking about green plants and the oxygen they emit you get a gold star. Not all environmental changes can be linked to human activity, and not all changes are bad. I have actually gone out and planted many trees to provide habitat for local fauna, which is more than many environmentally focused leftists have done. I've worked fire crews putting out wild fires and I worked the Exxon Valdez oil spill. I'm a conservative, but I also believe in preserving the environment...but not knee jerk reactions to the latest data to come in. The "experts" flip flop almost as badly as politicians. We need more data or we can accidentally make things much worse even with the best of intentions. | ||
| Swampy |
On a Yahoo video news I saw just now Austrailian citizens are reeling under the new "Carbon Tax" Aparently their domestic meat procduction falls under this carbon tax causing a lamb roast to cost around $100. Some offical was saying that Austrailians would be buying lower quality/lower cost off shore meat products, and said "that wouldn't be good for anybody" Danger Dave....care to corroborate to what is happening over there? Gee, and just when I was kindling a new found love of beef. Get ready America! |
