Carbon Footprint

pj wrote:

Al Gore shows this very impressive chart showing a correlation to global
temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere. Well, true enough there IS a
correlation, but it is the other way around. The planet heats up first and
THEN there is an increase in CO2 - and If I recall correctly, the lag time
is 800 years! That makes it a pretty weak argument that CO2 is causing
global warming. It is FAR more likely the other way around, global warming
is causing higher levels of CO2.

Hmm. But then those who poo-poo global warming usually trot out
evidence from 1950-1970 of global cooling. Which is right?

800 years ago is probably the little ice age (although most of that was
later), and, yup, the climate is warmer than then. It is also warmer
than 1970. Is all this due to coming out of the little ice age? Half
of that warming has come since 1970, so, you're going to say it's just a
continuation of the long-term trend from then?

They make a lot of other very good points but the above was what impressed
me the most.

The hard core environmentalists claim there is an almost complete consensus
among scientists about the causes for global warming but this is a
bold-faced lie. A lot of scientists do not buy into Mr. Gore's chicken
little hysteria. I know, HERESY - I'll get flamed in this discussion, but
the emperor has no clothes, it is just that most people are afraid to say
so.

Yeah, you'll get flamed for this. Which scientists are claiming this?
If you've read Michael Crichton's novel, as I suspect, you have seen the
names of most of the denials. Choose whom to believe, but know why
people are saying what they are saying.

Who has something to gain in this discussion? Where can research
dollars be put in order to increase profits and postpone taking stock of
the costs? Crichton et al want you to believe that there is an evil
conspiracy of environmentalists to take over the government for some
sort of socialist utopia. If you believe that, then we have nothing to
discuss. Most of these scientists, and I am not one of them, are really
just reporting what they are finding, and making the best predictions
they can. On the other hand, each of the scientists I looked up from
Crichton's novel were supported by --- the oil companies. Coincidence?
Do the oil companies have something to gain by not discouraging use of
their product? Do they have something to gain by belittling the
research of those who claim that product causes harm? Which "side" is
more likely to have a financial stake in the issue that might sway their
arguments? Crichton himself has made a pretty penny over the years
making wild claims about the excesses of science, and is continuing to
do so.

On the other hand, no, these scientists do not know what will happen.
They run their models, and their models are far from perfect --- they
cannot predict next week's weather, much less 22nd century climate.
However, climate is not as chaotic a system as is weather, precisely
because it is averaged out. So, in that sense there is a better chance
of getting a reasonable climate model than a weather model.

Whatever way the academic argument goes, we will, however, keep burning
oil and coal until it runs out, and then worry about the consequences.
One side will be able to say that it was right, but the society will
continue on the path it has set until the costs become unbearable, or
until the remaining oil takes more energy to get out of the ground than
it will provide. The timetables for both of these events are similar,
so it doesn't really matter unless you live at a low elevation or are
unlucky enough to get a worse-than-average effect.

--

David L. Johnson

Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig...
You soon find out the pig likes it!

Bill wrote:

Just a thought here since I don't want to get into a flame war. The
global warming might not be due to CO2 but just the cumulative effect of
so many humans burning everything in sight, oil, rain forests, natural
gas, whatever. The waste heat dissipates into the atmosphere and maybe
100 - 200 years of the Industrial revolution has just put 2 degrees
worth of waste heat into the air.

The waste heat in and of itself is not a problem. That is a minor
factor and would radiate out into space were it not for an increase in
the insulating capacity of the atmosphere.

The vast majority of the heating effect is from the sun; a small change
in the efficiency in dissipating that heat has an effect.

--

David L. Johnson

Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig...
You soon find out the pig likes it!

David L. Johnson wrote:
Bill wrote:

Just a thought here since I don't want to get into a flame war. The
global warming might not be due to CO2 but just the cumulative effect
of so many humans burning everything in sight, oil, rain forests,
natural gas, whatever. The waste heat dissipates into the atmosphere
and maybe 100 - 200 years of the Industrial revolution has just put 2
degrees worth of waste heat into the air.

The waste heat in and of itself is not a problem. That is a minor
factor and would radiate out into space were it not for an increase in
the insulating capacity of the atmosphere.

The vast majority of the heating effect is from the sun; a small change
in the efficiency in dissipating that heat has an effect.

I'll buy into that theory for now. The sun for one day probably amounts
to at least a years worth of human generated heat.
Still waiting for hard and irrefutable data.
Bill Baka

Let's look at who benefits from the hysteria:

Lots of money is being dolled out for research on global warming - don't
you think those scientists have a vested interest in keeping up the hype of
gloom and doom?

I do not know for a fact, but I read that Gore is CEO of an investment fund
aimed at carbon credits. It sure sounds like he has a financial interest in
perpetuating the hype. He also has a huge political interest. This comes
to you from the man who "invented the internet."

Believe me, I FULLY AGREE that we should be consuming far less
non-renewable energy than we do. I'm the type who goes around turning off
unused lights both at home and at work. It is a losing battle. Everyone
else at work is too &#%!! lazy to simply flip the switch to off when not in
use. I even turn off the power supply to my laptop computer when not in use
to save a bit of energy. I'm all for saving the environment, but we need to
spend our resources wisely. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars to cut
CO2 is madness if that isn't the cause of the problem. It will also cause
the "cried wolf effect" if we spend all that money and it doesn't make a
dent in the problem. Lets find out what the root cause is before wasting
time and money fixing a problem that isn't even a problem.

If you close your mind to the other side of the story, you are cheating
yourself. At least watch it and then flame me if you still think a flame is
in order.

Another big point made in the program is that sun activity is a much better
predictor of global climate changes. And yes, they do point out the global
cooling hysteria of a few decades ago, but they make a valid point.

You can lead a hard-core 'environmentalist' to the facts, but you can't make
him think.




"David L. Johnson" wrote in message
...
pj wrote:

Al Gore shows this very impressive chart showing a correlation to global
temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere. Well, true enough there IS a
correlation, but it is the other way around. The planet heats up first
and THEN there is an increase in CO2 - and If I recall correctly, the lag
time is 800 years! That makes it a pretty weak argument that CO2 is
causing global warming. It is FAR more likely the other way around,
global warming is causing higher levels of CO2.

Hmm. But then those who poo-poo global warming usually trot out evidence
from 1950-1970 of global cooling. Which is right?

800 years ago is probably the little ice age (although most of that was
later), and, yup, the climate is warmer than then. It is also warmer than
1970. Is all this due to coming out of the little ice age? Half of that
warming has come since 1970, so, you're going to say it's just a
continuation of the long-term trend from then?

They make a lot of other very good points but the above was what
impressed me the most.

The hard core environmentalists claim there is an almost complete
consensus among scientists about the causes for global warming but this
is a bold-faced lie. A lot of scientists do not buy into Mr. Gore's
chicken little hysteria. I know, HERESY - I'll get flamed in this
discussion, but the emperor has no clothes, it is just that most people
are afraid to say so.

Yeah, you'll get flamed for this. Which scientists are claiming this? If
you've read Michael Crichton's novel, as I suspect, you have seen the
names of most of the denials. Choose whom to believe, but know why people
are saying what they are saying.

Who has something to gain in this discussion? Where can research dollars
be put in order to increase profits and postpone taking stock of the
costs? Crichton et al want you to believe that there is an evil
conspiracy of environmentalists to take over the government for some sort
of socialist utopia. If you believe that, then we have nothing to
discuss. Most of these scientists, and I am not one of them, are really
just reporting what they are finding, and making the best predictions they
can. On the other hand, each of the scientists I looked up from
Crichton's novel were supported by --- the oil companies. Coincidence? Do
the oil companies have something to gain by not discouraging use of their
product? Do they have something to gain by belittling the research of
those who claim that product causes harm? Which "side" is more likely to
have a financial stake in the issue that might sway their arguments?
Crichton himself has made a pretty penny over the years making wild claims
about the excesses of science, and is continuing to do so.

On the other hand, no, these scientists do not know what will happen. They
run their models, and their models are far from perfect --- they cannot
predict next week's weather, much less 22nd century climate. However,
climate is not as chaotic a system as is weather, precisely because it is
averaged out. So, in that sense there is a better chance of getting a
reasonable climate model than a weather model.

Whatever way the academic argument goes, we will, however, keep burning
oil and coal until it runs out, and then worry about the consequences. One
side will be able to say that it was right, but the society will continue
on the path it has set until the costs become unbearable, or until the
remaining oil takes more energy to get out of the ground than it will
provide. The timetables for both of these events are similar, so it
doesn't really matter unless you live at a low elevation or are unlucky
enough to get a worse-than-average effect.

--

David L. Johnson

Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig...
You soon find out the pig likes it!

pj wrote:
Let's look at who benefits from the hysteria:

Lots of money is being dolled out for research on global warming - don't
you think those scientists have a vested interest in keeping up the hype of
gloom and doom?

Most of the money, at least federal research dollars, is not tied to any
vested interest. On the other hand, even if you did claim all that
money was the point of all that research, you'd have to admit that it
would be a drop in the bucket compared to the money in the oil business,
who are funding the "other side" research, which does indeed have an agenda.

Believe me, I FULLY AGREE that we should be consuming far less
non-renewable energy than we do.

Should be and gonna happen are two different things. I don't believe
that the oil companies are actually getting their money's worth by
promoting this denial research, because we all know that we are going to
keep driving, keep the thermostat up, and keep the lights on until we
run out.

The worst thing about the environmental activists is the
holier-than-thou attitude while they make meaningless gestures at
reducing their own footprint. A Prius is just another car, not a
solution to anything. Even electric cars create essentially the same
amount of greenhouse gasses, but at the powerplant rather than the
tailpipe. This is of course not counting the pollution generated making
the fancy batteries. Asking people to do without, to live where they
work, will fall on deaf ears as long as they can afford it.

spend our resources wisely. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars to cut
CO2 is madness if that isn't the cause of the problem. It will also cause
the "cried wolf effect" if we spend all that money and it doesn't make a
dent in the problem. Lets find out what the root cause is before wasting
time and money fixing a problem that isn't even a problem.

Never fear, this sort of thing will never happen anyway. Oh, by the
way, you and anyone else talking about how terrible this would be all
know full well it's not going to happen.

--

David L. Johnson

Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig...
You soon find out the pig likes it!

David L. Johnson wrote:

Should be and gonna happen are two different things. I don't believe
that the oil companies are actually getting their money's worth by
promoting this denial research, because we all know that we are going to
keep driving, keep the thermostat up, and keep the lights on until we
run out.

The Stone Age didn't end because they ran out of stones.

The same will be true for the "oil age". When the cost of
the resource gets high enough, alternate technologies will
emerge. It's finally starting to happen now, but quite
frankly, the price of oil *still* isn't high enough.

Furthermore, the price of the resource will reign in its
consumption. You can talk all you want about social or
environmental responsibilities, but it all eventually
comes down to economic imperatives.


SMH

On Mar 29, 3:49 am, "pj" wrote:

I do not know for a fact, but I read that Gore is CEO of an investment fund
aimed at carbon credits.

Close enough:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generat...ent_Management

It sure sounds like he has a financial interest in
perpetuating the hype. He also has a huge political interest. This comes
to you from the man who "invented the internet."

Just a nit here, but ... Gore didn't say that:

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore...n_the_Internet

This apocryphal story is much like the lady who was burned by
McDonald's coffee. Anybody that has read the /facts/ has an entirely
different view.

Carry on.

On Mar 28, 9:54 pm, "pj" wrote:
"nash" wrote in message

news:2HaOh.77601$zU1.4226@pd7urf1no...

Anyone watching CTV Climate change series on the News
http://www.sustain.ubc.ca/ for a footprint calculator

average is 5 tons/yr

Before you concern yourself too much about your carbon footprint, you should
look at this British Channel 4 program on Global Warming:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

It is over an hour long, but it is well worth the time. You've heard so
much on the other side of the story, now it is time to hear this side of it.

Al Gore shows this very impressive chart showing a correlation to global
temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere. Well, true enough there IS a
correlation, but it is the other way around. The planet heats up first and
THEN there is an increase in CO2 - and If I recall correctly, the lag time
is 800 years! That makes it a pretty weak argument that CO2 is causing
global warming. It is FAR more likely the other way around, global warming
is causing higher levels of CO2.

They make a lot of other very good points but the above was what impressed
me the most.

The hard core environmentalists claim there is an almost complete consensus
among scientists about the causes for global warming but this is a
bold-faced lie. A lot of scientists do not buy into Mr. Gore's chicken
little hysteria. I know, HERESY - I'll get flamed in this discussion, but
the emperor has no clothes, it is just that most people are afraid to say
so.

Do yourself a favor and see the other side of the story first and then
decide for yourself, don't just blindly take the political bull that Mr.
Gore is spreading.

Let the flaming begin - I don't care.

So what? Imagine a closed vessel or a bowl. Pour in some liquid ****.
It stays, doesn't it? Pour in a bit more. That stays too, and there's
more than before, and less clean space. Climate change, global warming
and the debate over whether they are real or not are distracting
details. The fact is, we are pouring **** into a closed vessel.

Donga

On 2007-03-29, Stephen Harding wrote:

The Stone Age didn't end because they ran out of stones.

The same will be true for the "oil age". When the cost of
the resource gets high enough, alternate technologies will
emerge. It's finally starting to happen now, but quite
frankly, the price of oil *still* isn't high enough.

That's true, but chances are if we ignore the problem and "let the
market work it out" there will be a great deal of largely unneccessary
suffering, mostly among people who had very little to do with the
problem itself. Burgeoning populations in 3rd world countries, for
example, that depend on petroleum-dependent economies will likely bear
the brunt of the suffering, even though their per capita fossil fuel
consumption is only a small fraction of say a typical North American.
While this can be cast as a simply simple humanitarian issue, I beleve
it will go much deeper than that and become a serious political issue as
well, exacerbating tension between the developed and developing
cpountries and leading to extensive violence and suffering. The Iraq war
can be seen as an attempt to position the United States in a favorable
location to control increasingly scare energy resources. Indeed, it's
difficult to interpret it as anything else and still have it make sense.

--

John )

David L. Johnson wrote:
pj wrote:
Let's look at who benefits from the hysteria:

Lots of money is being dolled out for research on global warming -
don't you think those scientists have a vested interest in keeping up
the hype of gloom and doom?

Most of the money, at least federal research dollars, is not tied to any
vested interest. On the other hand, even if you did claim all that
money was the point of all that research, you'd have to admit that it
would be a drop in the bucket compared to the money in the oil business,
who are funding the "other side" research, which does indeed have an
agenda.

Believe me, I FULLY AGREE that we should be consuming far less
non-renewable energy than we do.

Should be and gonna happen are two different things. I don't believe
that the oil companies are actually getting their money's worth by
promoting this denial research, because we all know that we are going to
keep driving, keep the thermostat up, and keep the lights on until we
run out.

They may go out because of the weather, if we are that dependent on oil.
Coal we have plenty of but the darned high Sulfur content.

The worst thing about the environmental activists is the
holier-than-thou attitude while they make meaningless gestures at
reducing their own footprint.

That sounds like you should get a job on a Japanese whaling boat. They
kill 850 a year for ***Scientific Research***.

A Prius is just another car, not a
solution to anything. Even electric cars create essentially the same
amount of greenhouse gasses, but at the powerplant rather than the
tailpipe. This is of course not counting the pollution generated making
the fancy batteries. Asking people to do without, to live where they
work, will fall on deaf ears as long as they can afford it.

One thing I would do with the Prius is bury it in solar cells. That way
if you park it in the sun all day you may not need to plug in at home.

spend our resources wisely. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars
to cut CO2 is madness if that isn't the cause of the problem. It will
also cause the "cried wolf effect" if we spend all that money and it
doesn't make a dent in the problem. Lets find out what the root cause
is before wasting time and money fixing a problem that isn't even a
problem.

Never fear, this sort of thing will never happen anyway. Oh, by the
way, you and anyone else talking about how terrible this would be all
know full well it's not going to happen.

Like we didn't extinctify the Wooly Mammoths by hunting them to death.
Rain forests are being cut down for no good reason, so how ling will
they last? May we can make trees extinct if we try heard enough.
Bill Baka