71
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2007 06:12 am
miniTAX wrote:
Because per capita, an European emits 5x more CO2 than a Chinese or 7x more than an Indian. Period.


List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita

Hmm, yes, Luxembourg (10th) is worse than the USA (11th).
But the list is headed by the US Virgin Islands, an US colony.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2007 06:12 am
Beware the carbon offsetting cowboys - part of an FT investigation into the "widespread failings" of the carbon industry and the "green gold rush":

In depth: Carbon trading
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2007 06:14 am
Now that I could have seen coming. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2007 06:21 am
cjhsa wrote:
Now that I could have seen coming. Laughing


Exactly to which of the various FT reports are you commentating? Or to all in generaliter? (Though in that case you probably could perhaps varify it a bit.)

Fine, however, that you laugh about that.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2007 06:23 am
I'm laughing that such a concept ever got off the ground in the first place. It truly shows the depravity of the environmentalist religion. That it is corrupt is hardly surprising.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2007 06:35 am
cjhsa wrote:
I'm laughing that such a concept ever got off the ground in the first place. It truly shows the depravity of the environmentalist religion. That it is corrupt is hardly surprising.




Most environmental groups agree with you, cjhs.

I do - re carbon trading - here also.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2007 07:24 am
When this idea was proposed, the image in my head was a sweveral hundred mile long line of used car dealers and real estate salespeople lined up for a job.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2007 08:03 am
Well, that's what I think when hearing stockbrokers.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2007 08:07 am
What the heck is a "sweveral"? Laughing
0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2007 08:22 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
miniTAX wrote:
Because per capita, an European emits 5x more CO2 than a Chinese or 7x more than an Indian. Period.


List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita

Hmm, yes, Luxembourg (10th) is worse than the USA (11th).
But the list is headed by the US Virgin Islands, an US colony.


looking at that link walter. the us virgin islands produce between 80 and 120 toones per head.
Most of the developed world produces around 20 tonnes per head (according to the list.)

Do you think that's a mistake or fault in statistics. I find it hard to believe.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2007 08:29 am
I suppose that's closely connected to starting and landing aircrafts at the airbase there .... and the relatively few inhabitants.
(Same is for Luxembourg, btw, and some other countries.)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2007 08:35 am
At least one scientist in the Virgin Islands is blaming global warming for impacting that area HERE.

Walter was citing a Wikipedia article, however, and I generally regard all those suspect or incomplete until backed up by authoritative source or sources. But if it is the airplanes leaving the huge carbon footprint, how come nobody is suggesting gliders to get to and from the islands?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2007 08:43 am
Wikipedia linked their source.

Here's an official USgov. graphic:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/cmdl-flask/graphics/avigr.gif

I don't know why that is and didn't look up the reasons either.

------------

A different (interactive map) by Globalis
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2007 08:49 am
They might get there in a glider, but they might have a tough time leaving, Foxfyre.

This reminds me also that whenever an airliner flies anywhere, it uses about the same energy as if each and every passenger had driven their own car that gets about 35 mpg. That is from recollection from a few weeks ago when I researched it. I hope I have that right. So when Gore flies around the world, a few thousand miles at a time, he is piling up alot of miles, equivalent to thousands in just a matter of hours or days of driving a vehicle powered by the dreaded internal combustion engine, which is apparently the scourge of the world according to his book, Earth in the Balance.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2007 08:59 am
Certainly: if you travel in your SUV, you'll create more emissions than if you had taken an airplane.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2007 09:07 am
Whatever became of the discussion about Mars having a warming trend as well? I've pointed to solar activity as a primary factor for "global warming" for quite some time.

http://www.lmsal.com
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2007 09:08 am
Quote:
http://i18.tinypic.com/359l7p3.jpg
Typical CO2 emissions of passenger cars per km.

For new passengers cars an emission value of about 140 g carbon dioxide per km shall be achieved soon.

At the moment such values may still range between 180 and 210 g/km. In the figure on the left additional energy consumers like air conditioners and seat heating are not included, so that the real world values are a bit higher. If we consider that there are about 1.4 people in average sitting in one car, this means that a typical car passenger emits around 120 - 150 g CO2 per km with the future trend going towards 100 g.

This emission is a bit lower for a typical passenger in an aircraft. Scandinavian Airlines gives for example the following information: On a flight from Oslo in Norway to Rome in Italy (2000 km) in an aircraft for 176 passengers the emission is 85 g CO2 per person. On a flight from Oslo to Atlanta in the USA (7000 km) in a plane for 250 passengers it is 117 g per person. If you consider that the is also cargo freight on board the amount is even a bit lower.

http://i17.tinypic.com/2q3oq2x.jpg
Information about the emissions of an airplane for the flight Oslo - Rome. Please click the image for the full view. Calculate your own flights at: www.sasems.port.se (Scandinavian Airlines)

But we need to consider that in a car there is usually enough space for 4 persons. This capacity is seldom used. Aircrafts do usually not fly half empty but work with capacity use in the range of 70 - 90%. Low cost airlines in Europe usually reach 80% use of capacity. Therefore for example car sharing could improve the values of per capita emissions for cars, while this is hardly possible for airplanes.

A major difference is that the CO2 is released in a much shorter time, since an airplane travels nearly 900 km per hour and a car on a longer distance maybe 90 km per hour.

...

The most important difference is the altitude in which the emissions are released. The air in the typical flight altitude of about 9 to 11 km. Has completely different properties than the air next to the ground.
It is much colder and it is much drier. Temperatures between -40 and -50 degrees are not unusual, also in summer. The water content drops to a few ppm. This means, maybe 3 - 10 molecules among one million are water. Next to the ground there is typically about 1% water or even more in humid climates, this means 10,000 of one million molecules are water. So if water comes out of the car the atmosphere does not care, since there is already so much water around.

...
source
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2007 09:29 am
i remember that prior to WW II some german long-range aircraft used diesel engines .
i've found out that while that is currently not a popular option , the diesel aircraft engine has not been completely written off .
i wonder if with better diesel technology and clean diesel fuel that type of engine might be considered again in the future .
a problem would no doubt be that current production facilities are not favouring diesel engines , and also that in north-america the word "diesel" immediately makes people cough .
hbg


two of the many entries for aircraft diesel engines :
DIESEL AIRCRAFT-ENGINES - WIKI

DELTAHAWK ENGINES
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2007 09:35 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Certainly: if you travel in your SUV, you'll create more emissions than if you had taken an airplane.

However, range of travel is pretty limited compared to an airplane, so if I drive my SUV to work, a couple of miles, I am much more environmentally friendly than Gore that flies 2,000 miles to what he might consider to be his work wherever.

Walter, I like your graph. And the VW, Lupo, I know a little about this, and it is extremely efficient, but we can't buy it in the U.S. How come?

And cjsha, the Mars phenomena has been pointed out numerous times here, but the CO2 fanatics simply write it off as insignificant and fairly meaningless. CO2 one track minds do not want you to bring anything else up. Besides, for all we know, Gore has been flying around on Mars, which could be the cause.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2007 09:50 am
Okie writes
Quote:
They might get there in a glider, but they might have a tough time leaving, Foxfyre.


Well that's true. I guess they'll have to allow an extra day to go home via sailboat. But you'll have to admit that gliders and sailboats would reduce the carbon footprints. I don't suppose it would be practical to go back to horse and buggy for land transportation though. Don't horses emit a lot of that methane that is worrying people? Or is that just cows?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 09/23/2024 at 04:30:28