Climate Change must be tackled NOW

I'm only displeasant with people who I firmly believe to be insincere, Piffka. Let's see whether Thomas can give a straight and honest answer this time. Thomas, if global warming doesn't need mitigating, by your book, then why would you subscribe to the article from the Economist that says precisely that?

You see, Piffka, liars get caught up in their own web sometimes.

0 Replies

He answered your question. Everyone here saw, read, and comprehended his response (but you, apparently). Perhaps your overly simplistic, black-and-white (child-like) thinking can't grasp the notion of accepting a course of action as the lesser of evils, but I'm pretty sure everyone else understood Thomas quite well. So save us your puerile challenges to him to answer your silly little question again. I suspect that were he to do so 100 times, you would still deny the answer as one you choose not to accept.

0 Replies

Now there is one issue I'd like some people's opinion on. If hydrogen driven cars are to replace petrol driven cars, the exhaust of CO2 will be replaced by exhaust of water vapor. Hmm... isn't water vapor a greenhouse gas as well ?

0 Replies

I can't even begin to address Scrat.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

He answered your question. Everyone here saw, read, and comprehended his response (but you, apparently). Perhaps your overly simplistic, black-and-white (child-like) thinking can't grasp the notion of accepting a course of action as the lesser of evils, but I'm pretty sure everyone else understood Thomas quite well. So save us your puerile challenges to him to answer your silly little question again. I suspect that were he to do so 100 times, you would still deny the answer as one you choose not to accept.

Nono, Scrat. You don't understand. According to Thomas, global warming poses no significant problem. A shift to a hydrogen transportation system is therefore irrelevant. Thomas?

0 Replies

Okay, since Wolf is already peddling conspiracy theories, here's why I was out of this thread for some time. I located the study on NASA's website and have started to read it. Other people might find that helpful too, so here's the URL

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html

EhBeth, is this the one you meant?

0 Replies

Let's take a look at a bit more of what Scrat looked at:

Quote:

No one can be certain whether Arctic warming and global warming in general are caused by natural climate variation or human activities. The general consensus - reflected by a United Nations panel of dozens of scientists from around the world - is that people are part of the problem, chiefly because gas emissions from cars and industry create a pollution shield that retains solar heat.

The University of Colorado's Mark Serreze said, whatever the cause, everyone should be concerned about Arctic warming.

"The fact is, climate is changing, and the Arctic is changing rapidly. We should be concerned in the sense that we need to simply recognize that change is here, change is occurring, and we may have to adapt to it," Mr. Serreze said.

this is from the Voice of America site. VOA NEWS

0 Replies

Thomas - there is an international conference on right now - so there are tons of 'news hits' on this.

0 Replies

Maybe his own links will convince Mr. Rational that the global situation warrants at least serious adaptations in policy. Maybe his Rational Brain could also fathom the immense danger our ecosystem -- including our food supplies -- will face if this greenhouse trend continues for another century.

Thomas, give up man, so we can all go home.

0 Replies

wolf wrote:

Nono, Scrat. You don't understand. According to Thomas, global warming poses no significant problem. A shift to a hydrogen transportation system is therefore irrelevant. Thomas?

I think it may well slow global warming, but I don't think global warming will cause us much harm in the first place, so the shift is irrelevant to our welfare, yes. If you have read the Economist's article, you might have noticed that they don't discuss the climatology of global warming. They take for granted that it's worth preventing, and discuss the economics of how to prevent it most efficiently. I agree with the Economist's economics, and disagree with their climatology.

As to your question about Water being a greenhouse gas, the answer is that the Hydrogen in question is produced by electrolysis of water, using some other form of energy -- could be nuclear, could be solar. So burning Hydrogen doesn't increase the amount of water vapor because it doesn't produce any water that hasn't been taken out of the system by the step of electrolysis.

0 Replies

hmmmm, you're making it a bit tricky to be on your side of the debate, wolf.

but on this subject, i am. at least in terms of being concerned about the implications of global warming.

Japan Today is being a bit dramatic about this - but perhaps that's appropriate.

Quote:

http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=8&id=276871

0 Replies

Okay, the news hits you guys are quoting refutes a claim I'm not defending -- the claim that there is no global warming. If you look back at my earlier posts, you will find that I never claimed global warming isn't happening -- only that avoiding it is more trouble than living with it. I'm not arguing with the NASA's finding that the melting of Arctic ice caps indicates global warming, and possibly feeds back into it. What I'm arguing with is the NASA's statement that melting Arctic ice caps raises sea levels -- this violates one of the oldest laws of physics called Archimedes's principle: Floating bodies take up as much space as the same mass of water takes up (or alcohol, or whatever the liquid happens to be). The melting of Ant-arctic ice caps would raise sea levels, the melting of the Arctic ones can't.

0 Replies

ehbeth, you might scroll through the preceding 20 pages to understand my slight irritation about the incredible immature neglect some people have towards the greenhouse effect.

Thomas, your answer about your support for the Economist article is unclear. It seems you are a climate change effect skeptic who can't help but feel worried about the influence our fossil fuel consumption is having on the climate. In that case your skepsis becomes obsolete. Private transport based on fossil fuels is causing the biggest increase in greenhouse gas production per year. Its CO2 stays up there for at least a century, and the climate is shifting because of it.

As for your explanation on the water vapor: hydrogen is a gas that can be extracted from all kinds of sources, not only from water, but also from hydrocarbon or alcohol. The exhaust of water vapor of millions of potential fuel cell vehicles would therefore create a net surplus of greenhouse gases, would it not?

0 Replies

wolf wrote:

As for your explanation on the water vapor: hydrogen is a gas that can be extracted from all kinds of sources, not only from water, but also from hydrocarbon or alcohol. The exhaust of water vapor of millions of potential fuel cell vehicles would therefore create a net surplus of greenhouse gases, would it not?

It can be produced from all these sources. But if your intent is to burn the stuff, you just burn the hydrocarbon or the alcohol directly, which is much cheaper. That's why all those hydrogen-based energy future scenarios are based on electrolysis of the water.

(... he said, retiring to bed.)

0 Replies

Quote:

The melting of Ant-arctic ice caps would raise sea levels, the melting of the Arctic ones can't.

I have no clue how you come to that, but the effect is the same: sea levels will rise. Another point to forsake your skepticism, perhaps, and another argument for urgent greenhouse gas mitigation. Your economic argument that mitigation is too expensive is nonsense. To shift away from the ignition of fossil fuels will be infinitely less costly than the chain of disasters we have already experienced as a direct result of the earth's warming. 3 billion euros lost in agricultural revenues this summer, remember?

<taps fingers and waits for opponent giving up>

0 Replies

wolf wrote:

I have no clue how you come to that, but the effect is the same: sea levels will rise.

Homework for tomorrow: take an ice cube, put it into a glass of water, and fill it up to a level where it only just doesn't flow over. If you are right, the glass will flow over as the ice cube melts. If I am right, it won't. In the Arctic sea, the ice caps are floating on the polar sea. In Antarctica, the polar ice rests on a continent, so the principle doesn't apply. Then again, Antarctica is cooling, not warming, as you have yourself acknowledged a few pages ago.

wolf wrote:

3 billion euros lost in agricultural revenues this summer, remember?

The standard estimate is that preventing global warming would cost the industrial states 3% of GDP. This computes to $300 billion in the US, and about the same in Europe. See the difference?

wolf wrote:

<taps fingers and waits for opponent giving up>

No, it's really just exhaustion. Good night.

0 Replies

Well, folks, there was a whole article about the ice shelves in southern Patagonia melting now very rapidly. I suppose that will evaporate and it'll rain in Mars?

0 Replies

Ice in Europe must be different than it is here.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

hmmmm, you're making it a bit tricky to be on your side of the debate, wolf.

Amen, I am somewhat on the side of the debate that wolf is but with friends like that....

0 Replies

[quote="Thomas] In Antarctica, the polar ice rests on a continent, so the principle doesn't apply. Then again, Antarctica is cooling, not warming, as you have yourself acknowledged a few pages ago.[/quote]

In Greenland, and I have no reason to expect anything different on the Antarctic continent, the weight of the great ice sheets and glaciers is such that the ground itself is depressed. When the ice melts, the ground rises.

Who said that Antarctica is cooling? It lost a huge piece of the Ross ice field last year due, I thought, to its warming trend.

0 Replies

Climate Change must be tackled NOW

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know