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

cjhsa wrote:

BS. Have the courage to do nothing.

actually you are doing something, you are running away. You're scared cj.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
BS. Have the courage to do nothing.
actually you are doing something, you are running away. You're scared cj.

Yeah, you can't kill a climate change with a gun.

T
K
O

0 Replies

The burning of some petroleum energy products can cause emissions of toxic or noxious gases into the atmosphere. However, the quantity depends on how the petroleum product is refined. While the CO2 emitted by burning petroleum products is neither toxic or noxious, some of the other emissions may be.

In the United States, much progress has already been made in reducing toxic and noxious emissions from burning petroleum energy products. More can and should be done to further reduce these emissions.

The rate per year, 1976 thru 2007, that the average global land & ocean temperature increased, has been less than 0.0213C per year. Because of this, it appears that the rate of global warming caused by the burning of petroleum energy products is likely to be at an even slower rate.

Therefore our emphasis now ought to be on how to further reduce toxic and noxious emissions from burning petroleum energy products, and less emphasis on whether or not to reduce use of petroleum energy products.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

0 Replies

high seas wrote :

Quote:

Hamburger - yes, but revenue is important to municipalities, so perhaps some market pricing research in advance of the original rules would have avoided that problem?!

it's because of trying to adjust to market pricing that the collection of "clear plastic boxes" has been discontinued .
they had been collected , sorted and sold for several years . the market price for that kind of plastic has dropped to such an extent that it can only be sold at a loss - so it's no longer being collected .

personally i cannot see any reason for having THREE different kinds of egg cartons in the first place - imo that's close to insanity . i don't think the chickens care what kind of a carton their eggs are packed in - and neither do i !

to me it's one of the examples why many people - at least in north-america - when it comes recycling and "green policies" just groan and shrug their shoulders .

if the big industries and various government agencies cannot come together and develop sensible guidelines and policies , the public will not easily come aboard .

i'll give another fairly simple example of why "ordinary people" - and i guess that includes me - cannot always make sense of official programs .
we've all been asked to conserve electricity . so we've bought energy-efficient lightbulbs , don't run the air-conditioner during peak-hours etc. etc . - sounds good imo .

when we visit toronto and are out at night , we see that many skyscaper office buildings are ablaze in lights - even though very few peole would be in the buildings .
i happen to know some of the reasons for it :
- when many of these buildings were built in the 70's and 80's , electricity was still quite abundent and cheap ; so many of these buildings were not wired with switches for individual offices , instead a SINGLE switch might control all the ceiling lights of a floor or section thereof .
it saved money on wiring and switches but it is not easy to rewire these buildings now .
- in many of these buildings the heat produced by lighting was included when calculating the heat required to heat the buildings . so the lights were considered as a heat source - and the actual heating systems were sized to take that heat into account .
again , it's not easy to change that now .
(and when you referred to the cold temperatures in canada , even in toronto , temperatures may go down to minus 30/35 C !)

to get back to my point of "ordinary people" . they see the lights blazing at night and are simply saying : "i should turn out ONE light and there are THOUSANDS of lights on with hardly anyone in the offices . it doesn't make sense to me " .

another "glaring" :wink: example are the car lots at night that are usually illuminated with plenty of lights . car dealers have the lights on to attract the people driving by and also to deter thieves from entering the car lot and dismanteling their cars - so that is understandable .
however , the "ordinary person" who is being asked to "conserve electricity" just sees the "waste" of electricity .

btw i recall that in germany many lamp-posts used to have a white stripe , indicating that they would NOT be on all night - if i recall correctly .
perhaps someone might refresh my memory on this point .

actually one of the selling points for attracting new industry to ontario until about 1980 were the extremely low rates for electricity - but no more . demand has started to outstrip supply and ontario now has to import electricity from quebec and U.S. states to meet peak demand .

the times they are changing !
i hope this throws some LIGHT on things :wink:
hbg

0 Replies

Global and regional temperature changes are the primary cause of global and regional climate changes like:

visibility,
humidity,
dew point,
cloudiness,
wind speed,
precipitation,
wind direction,
climate stability,
atmospheric pressure.

However, these climate changes can themselves cause temperature changes. In engineering, we would be inclined to call climate a feedback control system.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

i also have to say that many warnings/changes in the past have turned out to be wrong .

I've got a good example. I personally know someone that drove a semi out of Kansas into Oklahoma twice a day for a company that employed other drivers to do the same. Since the environmental laws, lawyers, treehuggers, whatever, kept the people in the city in Kansas from building a landfill there, they contracted a company to haul the garbage around 200 miles or more roundtrip, several semis a day, every day, for several years, just because they were too stupid to dig their own landfill. The geological conditions are roughly the same in that area as where they dumped it in Oklahoma, it was simply a matter of stupidity. Of course, the company in Oklahoma appreciated the business, and it provided jobs, but it was an absolute waste of equipment, time, and energy, including I would guess hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel during the time it was done. It was also alot of wear and tear on roads and highways, and one driver lost his life that I know of while traveling the route.

0 Replies

ontario has been EXPORTING much of its garbage to michigan for quite some time .
long lines of super-duper trucks can be seen every day trucking garbage to michigan .
imo that's just MADNESS !
hbg

february 2006 press release :

Quote:

Currently the City of Toronto sends less than 100 trucks of waste per day to Michigan, down from a peak of 142 trucks per day in 2003. The City is committed to and has a comprehensive strategy for achieving the goal of a 60 per cent rate of diversion by 2008 and 100 per cent diversion by 2012.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Global and regional temperature changes are the primary cause of global and regional climate changes like:

visibility,
humidity,
dew point,
cloudiness,
wind speed,
precipitation,
wind direction,
climate stability,
atmospheric pressure.

However, these climate changes can themselves cause temperature changes. In engineering, we would be inclined to call climate a feedback control system.

Since clouds influence temperature probably more than almost any other factor, is there any historical record of percent cloud cover, expressed as a percentage of each day, historically, for a large set of weather stations, for even one region of the earth? This has bugged me for quite a while, because this is one factor that controls alot of what goes into temperature, and do we even have a slight inkling of any numbers on this? CO2 is such a minor and insignificant player in terms of the so-called greenhouse effect, and I continue to find it amazing that folks are obsessed with it, when there are obvious other elephants in the room that are being ignored.

Seems my opinion is not alone:
http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/10/the_cosmic_climate_connection.php?page=all
"All calculations about the greenhouse effect and global warming assume cloud cover isn't changing," said Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, but it's uncertain whether this assumption is correct.

The question of cloud cover, Muller said, "is the most critical unanswered question in the entire global warming debate."

0 Replies

okie wrote:

.......Since clouds influence temperature probably more than almost any other factor, ..........

Okie - you know that really big light overhead in daytime? Of course you >

Quote:

Our Sun, the 5-billion-year-old star that sustains life here on Earth, powers photosynthesis in green plants and is ultimately the source of all food and fossil fuel. The connection and interaction between the Sun and Earth drive the seasons, currents in the oceans, weather and climate.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/solar_system/sun/sun_index.html

> do, and so you also know that earth clouds are an infinitesimal factor compared to solar activity Smile

0 Replies

High Seas, of course you are correct, and I think the sun is the main culprit here, but I was looking at just the greenhouse gas factor as an equation. I realize it is part of a bigger equation, but just to illustrate a point. Even if you accept the premise for illustration sake, that greenhouse gases are responsible for climate change, CO2 is a minor gas compared to water vapor. So let A be water vapor, let B include CO2, methane, etc., and let C be temperature. Then A + B = C, whereas B is maybe 5% of A. We have historical data for B, and we have data for C, but we have no good historical data for A, so we crank up our computers to tell us how the change in B brought about the changes in C. Since we have no data for A, we assume it is constant, and we run the computers to derive answers for the relationship of B to C. Now by common sense we would have to know it is very unlikely for A to be constant, and A is a much larger factor than B. Now I've heard that is brilliant science, but I don't think it would even pass in a beginning class of algebra.

Actually, in algebra, you could assume anything you want to solve the problem, so you can let A be constant, but scientifically it is unacceptable and will lead to fictitious results by trying to solve the equation.

To set the record straight, I meant to say clouds influence the temperature more than any other greenhouse gas, inasmuch as greenhouse gases are capable of affecting climate, at least that seems like a safe assumption since it is by far the predominant greenhouse gas.

0 Replies

If the sun was the main factor causing various warming or climate change effects it's quite hard to see how this wouldn't be instantly apparent. In many ways we know more about the sun then our own environment.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I just saw an advert on tv spelling out the dangers of excessive greenhouse gas emissions. It was hard hitting and left no room for doubt. The message was switch off or burn up. Globally.

Who sponsored it? Liberal lefty tree huggers? The "global warming crowd"? People who want to change our way of life for no good reason? No it was from the UK Government.

Its a serious problem and its time you profligate energy junkies and climate change deniers in the US woke up.

0 Replies

steve wrote :

Quote:

I just saw an advert on tv spelling out the dangers of excessive greenhouse gas emissions. It was hard hitting and left no room for doubt. The message was switch off or burn up. Globally.

Who sponsored it? Liberal lefty tree huggers? The "global warming crowd"? People who want to change our way of life for no good reason? No it was from the UK Government.

Its a serious problem and its time you profligate energy junkies and climate change deniers in the US woke up.

YES , i agree with you !
imo it is fair to say that SOME industries and SOME governments in north-america are doing a fair bit to become greener .
what i have heard SOME industry leaders say is , that they are looking for a FAIR playing field . i think governments and large industries have to come together and establish rules that apply to everyone .
business hates uncertainty and by not establishing clear and easily enforcable rules , many businesses hesitate to give an advantage to a competitor .
there are plenty of businesses that have shown hat being GREEN can mean BETTER PROFITS . those businesses shold be given much more prominence - and perhaps even financial advantages - to show what can be done .
many governments seem rather timid in their approach towards GREEN POLICIES (reminds me somewhat of the british TV series "yes , minister ! " and "yes , prime , minister ! ") .
governments and their ministers are often more interested in staying in power rather than sensible policies .
hbg

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

steve wrote :

Quote:
I just saw an advert on tv spelling out the dangers of excessive greenhouse gas emissions. It was hard hitting and left no room for doubt. The message was switch off or burn up. Globally.

Who sponsored it? Liberal lefty tree huggers? The "global warming crowd"? People who want to change our way of life for no good reason? No it was from the UK Government.

Its a serious problem and its time you profligate energy junkies and climate change deniers in the US woke up.

YES , i agree with you !
imo it is fair to say that SOME industries and SOME governments in north-america are doing a fair bit to become greener .
what i have heard SOME industry leaders say is , that they are looking for a FAIR playing field . i think governments and large industries have to come together and establish rules that apply to everyone .
business hates uncertainty and by not establishing clear and easily enforcable rules , many businesses hesitate to give an advantage to a competitor .
there are plenty of businesses that have shown hat being GREEN can mean BETTER PROFITS . those businesses shold be given much more prominence - and perhaps even financial advantages - to show what can be done .
many governments seem rather timid in their approach towards GREEN POLICIES (reminds me somewhat of the british TV series "yes , minister ! " and "yes , prime , minister ! ") .
governments and their ministers are often more interested in staying in power rather than sensible policies .
hbg

So preferring unplugging to 'burning up', I presume you guys have pulled the plug on your refrigerators, freezers, kitchen range, furnace, air conditioner, vacuum cleaners, hair dryers, television sets, radios, stereo equipment, and are lighting your homes with candlelight from hand rolled candles made from beeswax melted in a hot spring? You surely have put your automobiles up on blocks, are eating only organically grown vegetables watered with whatever rain that falls and can be consumed raw. You are walking everywhere you go because even a bicycle requires excessive energy to produce. And your community of course tolerates nudity well as clothing also require unacceptable quantities of energy to produce, at least until skills of preparing and lacing together animal hides are redeveloped. I suggest while a few spades and shovels still exist, that the people begin digging fresh caves now and learn to use primitive means to start fires before their homes become uninhabitable.

You obviously haven't pulled the plug on your computers yet but that is certainly next. We'll miss you both terribly.

But by golly we can look forward to global warming being stopped in its tracks.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

hamburger wrote:
steve wrote :

Quote:
I just saw an advert on tv spelling out the dangers of excessive greenhouse gas emissions. It was hard hitting and left no room for doubt. The message was switch off or burn up. Globally.

Who sponsored it? Liberal lefty tree huggers? The "global warming crowd"? People who want to change our way of life for no good reason? No it was from the UK Government.

Its a serious problem and its time you profligate energy junkies and climate change deniers in the US woke up.

YES , i agree with you !
imo it is fair to say that SOME industries and SOME governments in north-america are doing a fair bit to become greener .
what i have heard SOME industry leaders say is , that they are looking for a FAIR playing field . i think governments and large industries have to come together and establish rules that apply to everyone .
business hates uncertainty and by not establishing clear and easily enforcable rules , many businesses hesitate to give an advantage to a competitor .
there are plenty of businesses that have shown hat being GREEN can mean BETTER PROFITS . those businesses shold be given much more prominence - and perhaps even financial advantages - to show what can be done .
many governments seem rather timid in their approach towards GREEN POLICIES (reminds me somewhat of the british TV series "yes , minister ! " and "yes , prime , minister ! ") .
governments and their ministers are often more interested in staying in power rather than sensible policies .
hbg

So preferring unplugging to 'burning up', I presume you guys have pulled the plug on your refrigerators, freezers, kitchen range, furnace, air conditioner, vacuum cleaners, hair dryers, television sets, radios, stereo equipment, and are lighting your homes with candlelight from hand rolled candles made from beeswax melted in a hot spring? You surely have put your automobiles up on blocks, are eating only organically grown vegetables watered with whatever rain that falls and can be consumed raw. You are walking everywhere you go because even a bicycle requires excessive energy to produce. And your community of course tolerates nudity well as clothing also require unacceptable quantities of energy to produce, at least until skills of preparing and lacing together animal hides are redeveloped. I suggest while a few spades and shovels still exist, that the people begin digging fresh caves now and learn to use primitive means to start fires before their homes become uninhabitable.

You obviously haven't pulled the plug on your computers yet but that is certainly next. We'll miss you both terribly.

But by golly we can look forward to global warming being stopped in its tracks.

When you don't have a good argument, resorting to exaggeration and hyperbole alwa.... wait, never works.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png

0 Replies

Unplug the sun, icann, or we are all going to burn up.

0 Replies

foxfire wrote :

Quote:

So preferring unplugging to 'burning up', I presume you guys have pulled the plug on your refrigerators, freezers, kitchen range, furnace, air conditioner, vacuum cleaners, hair dryers, television sets, radios, stereo equipment, and are lighting your homes with candlelight from hand rolled candles made from beeswax melted in a hot spring? You surely have put your automobiles up on blocks, are eating only organically grown vegetables watered with whatever rain that falls and can be consumed raw. You are walking everywhere you go because even a bicycle requires excessive energy to produce. And your community of course tolerates nudity well as clothing also require unacceptable quantities of energy to produce, at least until skills of preparing and lacing together animal hides are redeveloped. I suggest while a few spades and shovels exist, that the people begin digging fresh caves now and learn to use primitive means to start fires before their homes become uninhabitable.

wow , wow , hold your horses , foxfire .
steve spoke of dangers of excessive greenhouse gas emissions.
personally i cannot see any advantage to mankind in ANY KIND OF EXCESS - but perhaps you may want to show us some EXCESSIVE EXCESSES that benefit mankind .
i'm always ready to look at something new .
i don't think i'm a luddite , but simply think that much is to be said for MODERATION in everything - it's just my opinion and likely not shared by everyone .
if you believe that EXCESS is more beneficial to mankind than moderation , i'm here to listen .
hbg

in the meantime ... ... ... >>>

Quote:

presumption
n 1: an assumption that is taken for granted [syn: given, precondition]
2: (law) an inference of the truth of a fact from other facts
proved or admitted or judicially noticed
3: audacious (even arrogant) behavior that you have no right
to; "he despised them for their presumptuousness" [syn: presumptuousness,
effrontery, assumption]
4: a kind of discourtesy in the form of an act of presuming;
"his presumption was intolerable"

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

When you don't have a good argument, resorting to exaggeration and hyperbole alwa.... wait, never works.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Economic damage. That's all that really matters at the end to you guys. That it will cost money for companies to do things in a cleaner fashion, and we can't have that.
Cycloptichorn

QED

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

I just saw an advert on tv spelling out the dangers of excessive greenhouse gas emissions. It was hard hitting and left no room for doubt. The message was switch off or burn up. Globally.

Who sponsored it? Liberal lefty tree huggers? The "global warming crowd"? People who want to change our way of life for no good reason? No it was from the UK Government.

Its a serious problem and its time you profligate energy junkies and climate change deniers in the US woke up.

Tree huggers and the global warming crowd are now working their way into government positions. What do you expect after years of indoctrination and media blitz?

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know