First a quick look at the chart shows one of the techniques on how to lie with statistics. You draw a line, and say things have changed for the better. In truth we could be at peak temperatures, there is a tiny chance, but that has to do with the variability of temperatures. Replace the chart's best fit line with a 10 year moving average, and the rise in temperatures is quite clear. The techinque on this chart was also used by the IPCC to make global warming look stronger than a trend line in a few reports. Let's not lie with statistics. The second link is rather exceptional, and I agree with Dr. Giaever. In his resignation he did not argue that there was global warming but disagreed with some of the measures and the value judgments. In science we should be open to discussing methods and errors, and he felt that APS had stopped being open and objective.
I don't think that is brainwashing. Get rid of your car and see how much less freedom you have If you don't live in a place with very good public transportation you will be giving some up. We did have a period of bigger faster means safer and you need to drive a hummer, or big SUV. That is one of the big lies. We can move to more efficient cars, everyone on this forum already has done this. We can move some of our cars to electricity, which can be produced with much less environmental damage oil. We can shift coal electricity to natural gas and renewables. That is happening in the US today. I find that one of the ironys of the global warming politics.. The hero of global warming is al gore, who has a huge mansion that wastes large amounts of energy. He travels the world in private jets, one of the least efficient means. He has a fisker, which because of its short run, actually in a full life cycle will use more energy than a hummer. That does not mean that we should not use less energy. If you go on a cruze every 5 years it doen't really impact much. If you live in a mansion, with inefficient hvac and ride around in private jets, you likely are part of the problem.
austin...I wasn't talking about anyone in specific, I was referring to the general population. My statement is true at least 99% of the time. You can't change human behavior as long as they have money to spend. Yes, you can reduce the impact but you can't totally change their behavior. If you look at it globally, the countries that pollute the most are the ones that are rich, or at least not poor. China is also polluting more and more and it's not just coming from their factories, it's coming from their people spending money buying cars, going on vacations, and buying houses and other types of properties. All those things create pollution. Regardless of what causes GW, we can't really do anything about it if people don't change their behavior. But they won't do that as long as they have money to spend.
Next time you use your computer, or iPad or whatever to type a post here, realize that by purchasing some Chinese made consumer electronic device you are also making a huge contributor to global warming. Or the next time you switch on your Prius that was shipped here from Japan, realize that you pretty much negated any positive effect the car has by having it shipped halfway around the world. Pollution Perspective: One Giant Cargo Ship Emits As Much As 50 MILLION Cars Not sure if meat is your thing, but by eating it you are contributing more to "global warming" than driving that hummer or taking that cruise. Are cows killing the planet? | Mail Online
That's right. I'm just as guilty as rest of you!! That's why I'm so confident about my statement because I'm one of you who are polluting the planet. That's why I said we can't really do anything about GW whether it's man-made or not. People aren't going to change until they run out of money
I keep hearing that stat about ships, and indeed there are numerous links, but nowhere can I find (in a cursory glance) the source material to back up the claim. I find the same quote, used over and over again in parroted response. I am not arguing the veracity of (or against) the claim, but merely suggesting that it deserves a deeper look. Icarus PS to MP. Your second comment about meat eating contributing to global warming (an idea that I think has scientific merit!) do you then suggest that human caused climate change is real then? I so, that would seem to be a change in perspective for you, if not, are you simply being argumentatively hypocritical? I
Industrialized agribusiness destroys everything it touches. Take a ride through Tar Heel, NC and you'll see what I mean. I put global warming in quotes to imply sarcasm because AGW is politicized junk science.
The biggest ship pollutant is SO2 and particulates that can be reduced by lowering the sulfur content of fuel. The US and Europe are reducing this in 2015. Many of the scare articles were aimed at getting this passed. The source mentioned is this from the guardian. Lowing the sulfur content of these fuels is a good thing, even though it raises the cost and energy to move this cargo. I do think they played fast and loose with some facts. Here you go with the article Health risks of shipping pollution have been 'underestimated' | Environment | theguardian.com Which points to this US study warns of pollution from merchant ships off Florida coast | Environment | theguardian.com Now those emissions are less harmful than those in the cars because they are mostly out in the ocean. Some do get to land. Note in the later guardian article they instead of questioning this, the science is pretty tough for this number, exaggerated it, and changed it from that number world wide to happening just in the US. We should expend the energy to remove sulfur from diesel for ships, as we have done in the US in Europe for cars and trucks. Ships also should be outfitted with pollution control devices such as SCR and dpf once the sulfur is lowered. That will reduce the amounts of unhealthy pollutants expelled in dangerous cities like LA, Shanghai, Tokyo, and London where these pollutants are most likely to cause problems. That works out to about 16 gallons of low quality diesel per car in a typical ship if it was full. Let's say 30 gallons in case you aren't full and you are less efficient than the ship they are comparing. Its not the fuel its the pollution that is really bad on these ships.
I don't know the details but I heard that beef has a pretty high energy/pound ratio. It takes a lot of energy to raise cattle and than transport them, butcher them, refrigerate the meat, package the meat, and continue to refrigerate the meat at retail stores. That's why a lot of people started to consume insects. Insects are healthier and you could raise them yourself saving a lot of energy.
Ok so I should give up all worldly desires, become a shut in, give away all my money and eat bugs to stave off a global catastrophe cooked up by gov'mint to collect more tax dollars? Ah, um, no.
Latest from Al Gore, interview with Ezra Klein. Sort of bizarre. I exaggerate slightly here for effect: Al Gore expresses extreme optimism that last remaining denialists voices are about to be stamped out. All countries just about ready to stop using fossil fuels to stop global warming. Scientists, who previously expressed caution about blaming individual bad weather events on global warming, now finally agreeing with the public that ALL bad weather events and forest fires likely caused by global warming. These bad weather events convincing the world's population of the dangers of global warming and the need to quickly ramp down fossil use (which of course is currently growly fairly rapidly). Rapid price decreases for wind and solar is causing substantial demand destruction for fossil fuels. Well, I missed seeing that outcome. If I mis-represented too much, let me know. Al Gore explains why he’s optimistic about stopping global warming
It's your choice to make. People who consume insects didn't say everyone should follow. I know most people aren't going to do that. That's why I believe that we can't stop GW.
Hitler wanted everyone to become a vegetarian like him. Oops did I just end this thread? People can have more efficient homes and cars without eating insects. If you want to eat insects its a free country, I don't want some fascist government to try to stop you.
Meaning? Why such a short time span, and why those artificial red trend lines? Why the subject change from carbon (tons per car) to sulfur (ounces per car)? Importing my Prius meant shipping 3000 pounds of car across the ocean now, and 30,000 pounds of fuel later. Buying a completely domestic non-hybrid (if such a mythical creature exists, I don't believe it does) meant shipping about 60,000 pounds of fuel later. The Prius saved 27,000 pounds of ocean shipping. This helps both the carbon emissions and the sulfur emissions. Plenty of veggies and vegans agree. I've cut my meat consumption too, though not to the point of joining them. But my house is already carbon neutral, and well along the path to be net zero within a few years.
If that logic were true, the Ozone Layer would be severely damaged by now. Yet it is recovering. The extensive implementation of the Montreal Protocol worldwide made the difference. Changing away from CFCs took money and many did not want to give that up....yet it happened. Likewise, all major fishing grounds are doomed if your logic is right, but some local successes are happening. Might want to do a some research on those successes before throwing in the towel.
Let me ask an honest question. Assume we take every last bit a oil, coal, natural gas, and remaining hydrocarbons out of the ground. Then assume we convert all the carbon in it to CO2. Then we dump all that CO2 into the atmosphere. Are there any effects on the Earth's ecosystem? That's my question. (It would help greatly if all political aspects were left out of the answer. It is entirely a question of physics, chemistry, and biology.)
And I was hoping to end it with my last comment. IMHO the guardian does make a point about polluted london. Why is there so much concern about ghg pollution reduction, when there is so little about the important unhealthy stuff. Does that stinking ship pulling into port, or old diesel car going through the street really not matter, because the single focus on ghg? But the article goes way to far, most of the pollution just gets dumped into the ocean poisoning it, not plowing over into coastal cities. Well seeing as you like toyota's lets try some numbers out. Say a camry uses 30 mpg and a prius gets 50mpg. After 200,000 miles that US built camry would use up about 2700 more gallons of fuel. Let's say its 6.25 lbs/gallon that is around 17000 pounds like less, but... only 40% of oil is imported, and much of this is from canada and mexico, lets pretend it all got shipped as far as the prius did, that would be 6800 lbs. But even here we need to ask about the ships efficiency, and yes oil tankers are more tnan twice as efficient per ton of cargo as car carriers, shipping that oil is going to cause less pollution. That is really not here or there, but it is definitely a fact that toyota if they were to build the prius in america, it would cause less pollution than building in japan and shipping it here. This is especially true now that Japan is importing coal, diesel, and lng on ships to produce the electricity to build the prius. If we are talking oil, not unhealthy pollution though, shipping a prius from japan should take less than 30 gallons of diesel. More fuel is likely used once it comes into port to get it to the customer.
I'm presuming that all the domestic production will be consumed regardless of my personal demand, so my marginal demand will be entirely imported. After putting 235k miles on the previous car, I'm aiming for 250k this time. And Camry still isn't up to 30 mpg.
I'm not a physicist so I don't know the answer to that. Unfortunately fear mongering politicians have already got their tentacles in this issue, so there is no going back now. Much the same way as abortion, gun control etc they divide the masses, distract them with phony science and then rob them blind. Kind of goes like this. Create a scenario in which you can divide the populace. Convince the "believers" that the "non believers" are (insert insult here) so that way no rational debate can be made. Now cue the crony politicians and corporations to come in and make mountains of money while the sheep are busy fighting about whether or not the earths temperature has risen one degree or two. It worked with guns. During the whole "obama's gonna take our guns" fiasco I sold off a large part of my collection at a huge profit. Now I can buy the same firearms back at normal price and am left with a nice pile of cash in my pocket.
I tend to agree with your sentiment, but for a different rationale, which is that is we have 7 Billion people on the planet heading to 10+ Billion people. My sense is we will need to continue buring fossil fuels to support that many people. My hope we can reduce use to attempt for sustainability, meaning slow down use until such time as we have a fossil fuel replacement strategy.
