I just ran across this web page while researching carbon sequestation and was taken back a bit as to how history which we can be surer of than the future differs so drasticly from what we are being told everyday about climate change and logging. It seems to verify my long held suspicions that we are really as insignificant to the world as I have always thought. It is quite a long read but very interesting. Here is just a teaser.
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE
Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.
CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.
CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.
If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!
Jim, I too have my doubts about how much effect man's activities are having on our climates. But the bottom line is, we just don't know. Even the most accomplished scientists don't really know how delicate the balance is. Could it be that the 3% we are causing is enough to knock things out of kilter? Maybe so, maybe no. This "global warming" issue is not a new one. There was a concern about it as much as 30 or more years ago. Back then, the concensus was that the stripping and burning of the South American Rain Forests was causing the change that they noticed. They still don't know how much impact that action had, but it seems to have been significant. The Rain Forests were considered to be a major source of the Earth's breathable oxygen, and not only was that resource lost, but trillions of tons of formerly retained carbon was released into the atmosphere by the burning. That action alone could possibly have been enough to trigger a slight, self-feeding change in oceanic temperatures that we are beginning to feel the effects of.
It may well be too late for us to avoid more damage, assuming there was damage in the first place, but we would be foolish to not try. Besides, though the warming trend will not have significant impact in our lifetime, the same efforts that fight global warming also makes for a cleaner and healthier environment, in the short term. I don't think that logging is a major player in the percieved problem, as most of the carbon is being retained as lumber and other forest products.
DanG
Great reply again, Thank you. 40 million barrels a day might be doing something to the little blue marble.
SE
I agree , the US being the worst polluter in the world really has to step up to the plate and make an example of how to be ecologicly better. The global warming and ice ages as stated in the mentioned article have been coming and going for millions of years but for health purposes a good clean up would be benificial.
This is another informative site.
http://www.omsolar.net/en/omsolar1/co2_emissions.html
Worse polluter in the world? You may want to look at India, or just the fires burning from India to east Asia. You have been listening to Al Gore, right?
TR..........I wanted to reply to the above post, but I get into enough trouble without discussing the controversial issues. Glad you did............
You guys get to serious up there. I was so proud of Al getting his award last night for warning us that the world is going to overheat. It was to bad that the global warming took all those power lines down and froze up your TV´s so many of you couldnt see it.
Now I am waiting for someone to tell George because I think he has missed everything so far. Glad to here someone say that all the smoke comes from Malaysia to take the heat off us here in the Amazon.
Have a cold one.
Just read an article (and I have no idea where it is, but will look for it) that commented that back in the '60's and '70's you guys down south were responsible for global warming because of the rainforest being cleared and burned. No one can tell that man alone is resonsible (other than Al Gore, who says man is "totally responsible". This from the man that "invented the internet") for global warming, and most ignore that knawing fact that we are moving into the middle of an interglaciation. I.E., the earth has been warming for some 15 to 30,000 years, depending on who you listen too, on any one particular day.
If nothing else, global warming has created an immense pool of funding for any and all so called scientists that want to prove their theory.
That "global warming" is a major problem is a fact. Just ask Al Gore. He is working as hard as he can to MAKE it a problem. Just wait and see what comes down from the misinformed politicians. And unfortunately Al Gore is not the only problem.
Also don't forge that scientist who don't agree with the global warming misfits are subject to find themselves without a job or funding.
According to the National Energy Technology Laboratory, Co2 levels in the atmosphere were relatively stable at 228 ppm up until the mid eighteen hundreds and are currently 367 ppm, and the rate of increase has gone from less than one percent a year to about 2.5% a year in the last few years.
mike s.
A really great book to read on this topic is "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. It really helps to explain more dimensions regarding global warming than you will learn from the mainstream media.
Although the book is a novel, the scientific data and voluminous references presented by Dr. Crichton are factual.
One of the sad things about this debate is the discrediting of all our scientific community by the environmentalists use of staff scientists to make unsubstantiated claims that most times are later proven to be not true. We now have the term "junk science" which threatens the entire scientific community and leaves the public not knowing who to believe.
There have been attempts to require all scientific facts to be "peer reviewed" but that has failed for the most part. The peer review process can be absolutely brutal on any scientist that does not have all the i's dotted and t's crossed, yet these non-reviewed findings many times have been the deciding facts in many important court cases.
The result of this is that even a well read and informed public does not know what nor who to believe. If we cannot trust our scientists, who can we trust? Certainly not our government and most clearly not Al Gore.
But the beauty of junk science is that you can take whatever position you want and you can support whatever position you want. Or the interpretation of the science or statistics by politicos will have a skewed meaning.
Example: Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and the ilk like to note that there are more trees now than when the pilgrims landed. They use that fact to support their notion that clearcutting does no harm and we should do more. It also discredits any environmentalists.
The opposing view can't dismiss the statement, since it is true. But, it sounds like there is more forested area than when the pilgrims landed, and that is not true.
As pros, we know that the conclusion for clearcutting can't be supported by the original statement. We know it has its place and that is can do damage.
Gary_C
You sure hit that nail squarely on the head.....and Ron mentioned how the statisticians can turn anything into a skewed fact. My opinion, anyhow.
Interesting link.
The main point about water vapor vs. CO2 concentrations is kinda overblown in my opinion. There are very good reasons why water vapor is not a underlying driving force in greenhouse effect, like CO2 does, even at much lower levels. Also the figure stated, that 95% of warming effect is due to water vapor, is dubious. Its closer to 70. Don't believe me, google is your friend.
Given the stakes, I think there is more than enough evidence to start changing our behaviors, just maybe not in ways the mainstream media focuses on.
One thing virtually never discussed is how large a factor soils play in the carbon cycle. Even today, the world's often depleted soils contain more carbon than does all vegetation and the atmosphere combined. Over the past two hundred years, mechanized farming and poor soil conservation worldwide has resulted in billions and billions of tons of carbon released into the atmosphere. Yet we never hear much about farming practices, only the tailpipe/smokestack part of the equation. Soil science is too boring for CNN I guess.
To some degree, perception is reality, and many of the world's nations and major corporations have concluded that CO2 emissions *are* contributing to warming and that the status quo is simply not acceptable. Whether or not that is 100% undisputable or not is pretty irrelevant to me. The global warming problem could be an absolute boon to our economy and natural resource industries if we embrace it instead of burying our heads in the sand, insisting there is nothing that can be done, or wishing some grand conspiracy was afoot. Once more if some distant corporation wants to pay me for storing CO2 in my trees I am growing anyways (via carbon credits) then hey I'm the first in line.
Greg
I feel that without question there is a lot of "junk science" a lot of "ideal motivated " science
and a whole lot of science that is done with the best of intentions. The biggest problem being is that while the earth is billions of years old and appears to have gone these cooling and warming cycles many times we as the current custodians of the planet are very new to the scene and simply dont know much. I think a lot of the junk science is nothing more than science which has been discovered to be wrong by better methods and capabilities and not intended to be misleading.
I know that in my little world of tree identification we are in an international mess and I am sure this applies to all types of science. Many years ago the world was quite confident in the scientific names of trees. Then came the internet and destroyed all confidence. It became apparant that with the huge exchange of information on the net that many trees had been "dicovered" many times by many people in many places whos work was not available to others who kept discovering the same trees and putting on more scientific names . This is where we stand today where one tree can have 20 or 30 scientific names and we got there because everyone meant well and not do to bad intent.
Looks to me like we are going thru this in every phase of science and discovery and the sad part is that there are always vultures ready and circeling waiting to take advantage of the spoils.
Last weeks "Farm World" weekly magazine had a front page article about using woody material as a carbon source and hydrogen produced by electrolysis of H2O using wind, solar and hydroelectic sources to make liquid fuels. They state it would make possible the dawning of a "hydrogen-carbon economy". This is detailed in a research paper appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
This research is being done by Purdue chemical engineers. They believe this process could produce all the fuels needed for our entire transportation sector. If this is true, then we are in for a fantastic change in world economy. The middle east will become irrelevant. We will not be adding fossil carbon to the atmosphere.
Purdue is one of the top engineering schools in the US. Being a graduate, I am unbiased. :D :D This could affect our business directly using cleared cedar. The central and west central US is being overrun with woody vegetation since fires have been suppressed.
I am surprized this has not made headline news.
Cedarman,
This is the kind of stuff I like to read - instead of the debate of our current CO2 situation, I would much more prefer to talk about whether we need to start thinking differently about our approach to living on this planet of ours.
In the past there were always available resources just for the harvesting. There were frontiers where as long as you were willing to chance being eaten by a bear, you could carve out space. This really isn't the case anymore except in isolated locations.
We are really feeling this in Costa Rica - 40 years ago most of the country was forest - go out and cut down a forest (they often burned it. :o ) and you had a farm. Now we are down to only 27% or less of forest which is effecting the water supply. Believe or not, we actually have to ration water at times - IN THE RAINFOREST!
My point is this - we can't take anymore from the earth without putting back. We can no longer think of the world as an unlimited bank of resources. With more than 6 billion people all dipping in, the bank is running low.
I am much less upset about C02 and global warming than I am over the idea of burning a resource like oil just to power machinery. Oil is used for a lot more stuff than just moving vehicles - it is a shame to just burn it.
Sort of like how I would feel to see a wonderful slab of curly wood chopped up to throw on a fire. :o
So, what do you think?
Quote from: Cedarman on March 30, 2007, 06:30:09 AM
Last weeks "Farm World" weekly magazine had a front page article about using woody material as a carbon source and hydrogen produced by electrolysis of H2O using wind, solar and hydroelectic sources to make liquid fuels. They state it would make possible the dawning of a "hydrogen-carbon economy". This is detailed in a research paper appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
This research is being done by Purdue chemical engineers. They believe this process could produce all the fuels needed for our entire transportation sector. If this is true, then we are in for a fantastic change in world economy. The middle east will become irrelevant. We will not be adding fossil carbon to the atmosphere.
Purdue is one of the top engineering schools in the US. Being a graduate, I am unbiased. :D :D This could affect our business directly using cleared cedar. The central and west central US is being overrun with woody vegetation since fires have been suppressed.
I am surprized this has not made headline news.
Cedarman,
I have heard about this as well. The Purdue scientists have named this process H2CAR. Remember that acronym. There are two major unsolved problems with making it commerically feasible at this time, but if those major issues can be solved, this technology could be HUGE. Here's the news release from Purdue.
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070314AgrawalBiomass.html
A litte off topic now, but another one to keep an eye on is thermal depolymerization process, or TDP. This process could revolutionize solid waste disposal AND produce healthy amount of liquid fuel. TDP is much further commercially along than H2CAR, with a working plant in Carthage, MO - it uses turkey guts as its feedstock.
Bottom line, getting back to CO2 and climate change, some people in the natural resources processing world are going to get VERY rich trying to solve this problem, and the associated problems of reliance on middle eastern petroleum. H2CAR or TDP may not end up not being "the big one", but there are lots of other potential "second generation" biomass to liquid fuel efforts being pursued..
Its pretty obvious to me, you can either ignore climate change/dig in your heels and argue till your blue in the face as to whether its man made/real or not, or get on board as an entrepeneur and take advantage of a monstrous opportunity.
Sadly for the future US economy, our country has basically taken the first approach. From what I've seen, most of the best and commerically advanced technology and investments in these areas are happening in Europe and elsewhere.
Greg
Cedarman,
I too found the article on the Purdue research enlightening and hopeful. My only misgiving is that they were still considering nuclear as a 'clean' fuel. It won't be clean until the waste problem is solved - but that is another issue. Other than that I think they are on a good track.
Greg, I could not agree with you more. :)
QuoteMy point is this - we can't take anymore from the earth without putting back.
.........the bank is running low.
I think that too. I spread the thought to a wider subject though.
Education=lots of money and many sharp minds are lost in the economics.
Politics= those trusted to govern learn to pad their own pockets first. It's a world of elders and no fresh blood coming up the ranks. If we were smart, we would be training another batch of governors, not looking somewhere else for one.
Management=protection of one's job and surviving in an intimidating atmosphere. Corporate organization ruins free thinking and creativeness. Rather than the muckity mucks controlling everything with a tight fist, the aim should be to train from within. The best workers and managers come from an organization that trains them to operate the way the company wants the work done and gives them the latitude to experiment. Organizations are amiss in providing longitude too. Threats of short careers based on the philosophy that "there is someone out there on the street, better and cheaper, that wants your job", makes trusted and loyal employees withdraw into a shell of self-preservation. It is a fallacy that one can judge another's needs or happiness by our own.
I think the complaints and loss of our natural resources is moaning about a symptom not a disease. Education comes from more intimate situations than universities. We, as a people, are remiss in not guiding our youth toward knowing that they can make a difference and giving them the road-map that will show them the way.
Who, when you were growing up, (rhetorical) sat you down and explained the importance of honesty, sex, relationships, politics, money, pecking orders, leadership and caring. I don't mean told you one time. I mean that they told you over and over until you were tired of hearing it. That they challenged you with projects that taught the lesson. That they didn't demean you, but rather made you think.
Who is encouraging the youth to run for public office and why? You don't point them out the door and say "Sell!". You take them by the hand show other's failures and how they can succeed by doing differently. You don't tell them that they can be President one day if they want. You take them to City Hall and show them the papers that they must sign to become a city councilman. You put together the machine that will get them elected Governor. But, first, you make sure that they understand that they are in it for the people, not themselves. Then you make sure they understand that they must pass the baton.
Complacency is what is ruining this world, regardless of who we try to blame.
I know, I got off track, but it's a sore point.
Actually Tom, I beg to differ with you - are are RIGHT on track! ;)
We have to have the mindset of not raping and pillaging, but building up things - that includes people. If I may use an example, when we started with Hector and Chris, they had nothing and I do mean nothing. We poured time, money and ideas into them, really mentored them. Now, they have a beautiful home, a very nice vehicle, and a very nice nest egg. And this was after 5 years.
Should I complain? Of course not, we made twice what they did in the same time period (we owned 2/3 of the company).
We need to have a attitude of nurture. If you have land - make it better every year, more fertile, more productive - instead of taking what you can and wondering why you are poorer every year.
I spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to make all our workers make more - that is right, how I can give them more because they are more productive. Am I stupid? I don't think so, since I keep building strong, healthy companies - and I sleep very well every night (okay, if I would stop getting new ideas I would sleep well...)
It is a bit strange to me because people thing I am being such a good person - honestly, I think I am just being wise. Take care of people and they take care of you. You do have to weed people out who don't want to produce of course.
Okay - now I think I wandered off topic... ::)
Fred,
Your philanthropy will be measured, not just by your success, but, by the success of those that you pass on to the world and their acknowledgment of you as a mentor. Will they become complacent or train another? Our own successes are due to our education. (or luck) The successes of those we train are our real measurements. That they live in a good house is nice. That they learned how to make the world a better place and teach it to someone else, is the true test.
That we get the credit for the desert is immaterial, it's the pudding that's important. :)
I would add that one of the more important things a person can glean from whatever source is the ability to look objectively at a situation, weigh the possibilities, acknowledge the risks and downsides and make an informed decision that is their own. Too many prefer to let others make decisions for them and just follow blindly where they are led. Unfortunately the greater percentage of people fit the latter group.
Absolutely correct Tom, if others repeat the idea - then it is really a success.
Not sure I think I am philanthropic - just a bit better at looking at the big picture.
Its nice that we can put a perspective on the world, and think our way is the best way. In some cases it is, in some its not.
Corporate realms have rejected the idea that workers are of much importance. They will use whatever is the cheapest available, and toss it to the side like a piece of used equipment. They also will suck up resources as fast as possible. They need sales to promote a product or service. Without it, the corporation fails. However, minimizing the value of the labor force just reduces the number of potential sales. Henry Ford knew that and kept his labor force well paid. He looked at them as customers = potential assets vs current liabilities.
I'm not sure that education is failing. It may be failing in the way we were taught, but times have changed and we haven't. Does a kid really have to know his math tables? Or is it better to know what to use in which cases? How many people rely on a calculator? I can't grasp the importance of a cell phone or blackberry or the other electronic gizmos. But, the kids can and they use them to their advantage. Their computer use is far beyond ours. Kids also understand concepts, although they may be different from ours.
Why take someone by the hand and teach them the governmental system? That just perpetuates the same system, not change it. A lot of the stuff is just bureaucratic procedure, and is regulated by the dominant party. No wonder they're turned off.
The problem with the hydrogen is that it will cause a great shift in power. If people can produce all their power needs, what relevancy is there in government or industry to meet our needs? With lots of power producers, the government won't be able to control them, and industry won't be able to bust them up, unless they can produce at a greatly reduced cost.
I have tried to always live my life by the concept of doing to others as I would have them do to me. Just because I end up in a position of power does not say I should abuse it.
By treating people fairly and trying to always do the right thing - I have succeeded much more than I ever thought I would. It would have been okay if I just did okay - but it sure convinced me that there is something to those ancient words of wisdom.
This is not to say that I am very nice when someone tries to take advantage of me - but then again, that is how I would want to be treated. It isn't good when you don't learn you lessons... ;)
Corporate America has become very shortsighted. So has our society. We have to start thinking longterm and not accept people destroying companies and peoples lives so that they can live in a 40 million dollar yacht. >:(
QuoteWhy take someone by the hand and teach them the governmental system?
Because they can't make a change if they don't understand the rules. It's what we teach them about Government that is important. I can only speak for the USA. We are not a monarchy, nor are we a dictatorship. We aren't
ruled, we are
governed. We, as citizens, are supposed to be running the ship.
It's the segment that believes we are supposed to do as told that needs to be replaced. We need to replace them with officials that realize that we "abide" laws, not follow rulers.
I don't believe that our "system" would be made better by installing a person trained in another system. I do believe that our system will be better as we incourage our youth to take a part and become involved. That education is deeper than formal training will go. It's an education that must be promulgated from the onset by mentors and family who appreciate our freedoms and wish to retain them.
Our System is not just Federal. The rules under which we live are designed by those in intimate contact with the citizens in the immediate area. Our cities should be run by someone from that city, and the same for the State and Federal positions too. It's not "good old boy" politics, it's knowing that the constituents don't eat grits and don't want to be forced to do so.
But, the system protocol dictates that you start as a good little boy. Follow the rules and do what the party wants. They will bring you through the ranks. They will make sure the rules are on your side. The party will dictate to you how you should vote. Violate the rules and you're out.
In our state there are 2 sets of rules. One for party members, one for everyone else. When the governor ran for re-election he needed to get something like 5,000 signatures. When an independent tried to run, he needed 62,000 signatures. Our local representative needed 100 signatures, an outsider needed 500. And corporations and fat cats keep those parties well oiled with cash. Lots of it.
People can think outside the box, and live outside the box. As long as everyone follows the rules, government is relevant. When the rules change and government does not, then they become irrelevant. The speed limit is a pretty good example. Now its more of a suggestion.
Rules can be changed within the system or outside the system. If the system is too slow in changing, then outside forces will change it. Bringing someone along and showing them the ropes from within the system will not bring about change. It only prolongs the lack of change. The world is a different place and nothing will remain the same.
QuoteIf the system is too slow in changing, then outside forces will change it.
I keep looking for terms like "bourgeoisie" and "Proletariat" to show up here somewhere. :D
If it were come to pass that we could make our own liguid fuels for our cars and trucks, there would soon be laws passed that either banned them because they were unsafe or some such reason, (try running a still) or they would be taxed at big rates. If it wasn't for the second ammendmant how many of us would have guns? I am very cynical about our government. Raising your own food is being controlled, try raising a few hogs to butcher.
A good friend of mine who I think is as ethical as they come was recently elected as a city councilman. I know he is going to be put in situations where he has to make decisions that will severly test his principles. Politics has a way of corrupting people because to get things done there are always "favors". My late neighbor and friend who was office manager for a top elected official in Louisville could easily make sure that he and any of his friends would not have to pay any traffic tickets. He was on a first name basis with senators and governors. He explained how things got done in politics.
You can get good people in politics. How do you keep them good?
To get back to fuel...
If our energy structure changes in this country to where we grow our fuel, think what this will do to land prices that can grow the raw material for that energy. For those businesses that can harvest that fuel and get it to the processors or own the portable processors to make liquid fuel.
Aaron and my daughter are now grinding cedar in so Ok. They can move the trees and grind 80 tons of 15% mc material per day and get it on the trucks. If this same weight were converted to fuel it would be worth about $45,000.00 This off of 2 acres. Of course I am playing with numbers, but they lead to some interesting figures.
Warning - the following is a rant from a soap box and may raise your blood pressure
;D
Alot of good thoughts here - and the scientific ones maybe beyond my recollection of chemistry/biology. I 'd comment first about human nature. Mostly democracy is supposed to be in trouble when the majority finds out it can "vote" itself ( thru representatives ? ) benefits. But I think as big a problem is letting ( our ? ) govt be controlled by special interests - be they the in crowd or big corporations. I'd like to suggest giving us citizens the right to collect so many signatures and have measures ( laws ) put on the ballot. I hope ??? elected officials would behave more responsibly iffen they knew we could undo whatever they do - and send special interests the message that they'll lose their money trying to influence govt. ( I was once told the founding fathers did not want to allow political parties - they thought it would degenerate into bickering over who got what instead of deciding issues on merits ) .
That said - and bringing it back to co2 and global warming - I think an answer is right in front of us. First - as of right now - this minute - everything I've heard is that making hydrogen takes more energy then you get back. ( Could be something they told us back in school is that every time you convert energy from one form ( liquid to mechanical to heat to ??? ) to another you lose because no reaction is 100 % perfect - so an engine or turbine or heater or whatever will only be 60, 70, 80, 90 % efficient . Now I suppose there are some that are so big that its of small consequence - like if you could harness fusion ( the sun's reaction ) - we'd be in good shape but more like turning water to hydrogen costs more then the hydrogen you get out . Dead end unless somebody is feeding you big subsidies, tax writeoffs or grants - at least with what is doable now. ( Please let me know if someone's found an answer as I haven't been keeping up with the future scientific wannabees for fear they'll drive me to the poor house and drop me there ).
Second - Rudolph ( ? ) Diesel developed his engine so farmers could use their crops to get the oil ( peanuts were his first I think ) to run diesel tractors. He wanted to free them from the tryanny of business men. We went astray when we let big oil/energy take it over. Instead of pulling fossil ( dino ) fuel outa the ground and putting it in the sky we coulda stuck with growing the nuts ( nowadays algae shows the best hope I think - an MIT guy could make enough just off power station exhaust to supply all our current diesel needs leastways according to him ) . Growing the "fuel" to run the tractors that grow the fuel is what I believe is called carbon neutral. We wouldn't be fooling with Ma Nature but could run diesels all we want as long as you use your own ( or neighbors ? ) homegrown. Throw some ethanol into the mix and maybe we'd have a chance to leave the middle east to the sand dunes ?
So going back to human nature for a last $ 0.02 I'd like to suggest some easy thoughts to consider, suppose we :
all treat people like we want to be treated.
put things back the way we found them - like our room ( or our planet ? ) ( let's not get to green here - just that maybe if I grow the tree and you cut it between the two of us we balance out ) .
are all accountable ( or should be ) to someone.
Chewed up enough bytes off the FF server - thanks to those who read through this all
Cedarman
You keep going back to the landbase as being a source of independence. But, if hydrogen were to be converted from water and wind/solar power, wouldn't that make even the most suburban and even some urban properties energy self sufficient? Wouldn't that negate the land factor?
Bill
Your physics seem to be in order, but if you impose the amount of energy coming from the sun you will see that the energy is way greater than what we use. When you put that into the equation, things work out fine. But, like you say, we aren't quite there yet. The current main source of hydrogen is from natural gas.
Tom
The "bourgeoisie" and "Proletariat" are from the theories of Karl Marx. Coming of age in the 60s meant that Karl Marx was talked about, but Tom Paine and Thoreau were more meaningful. Also, the teachings of Jefferson, Franklin, and Jesus were also thrown into the mix. ;)
Quote from: Greg on March 29, 2007, 10:14:25 AM
One thing virtually never discussed is how large a factor soils play in the carbon cycle. Even today, the world's often depleted soils contain more carbon than does all vegetation and the atmosphere combined. Over the past two hundred years, mechanized farming and poor soil conservation worldwide has resulted in billions and billions of tons of carbon released into the atmosphere. Yet we never hear much about farming practices, only the tailpipe/smokestack part of the equation. Soil science is too boring for CNN I guess.
I am a bit puzzled by this. The just released "planting intentions report" shows that we need to average about 150 bushels of corn per acre on 90.5 million acres in order to keep the existing ethanol plants running. Back in the 1950's and 60's farmers were fortunate to average 75-80 bushels of corn per acre. I can guarantee you that we can NOT average 150 bushels per acre on depleted soils. In fact, farmers have available some very sophisticated GPS controlled yield monitoring and fertilization equipment that allows spot feeding of small areas within a large field as well as providing basic needs for the crop to be grown. In fact, I can't imagine anywhere in the world that it would pay to deplete soils of nutriments.
Second, I was under the impression that growing crops, trees, or any other plants removed carbon from the atmosphere. So how has farming and this supposed poor soil conservation "resulted in billions and billions of tons of carbon released into the atmosphere?"
So where are the facts on this "boring soil science?"
True, there is always a loss in converting one form of energy to another, but wind, water and solar are "free" in that they are here on earth and will simply be converted to heat if don't use some of it to turn water in H2 and O2.
Ron, individuals could produce there own energy off of their own land, but the railroads, airplanes, trucks, and businesses that use huge amounts of liquid fuels will need a big source. It will take a vast quantity of land to provide all the fuel this country needs. If we were to get a net of 100 gallons of fuel per acre it would take almost 3 billion acres to produce the fuel we need each year. With woody biomass you wouldn't harest each acre each year, but it would require that amount of land set aside for fuel production. Just how many acres are in the US?
Now this is serious global warming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earth's Inner Temperature Taken: It's Hot! Jeanna Bryner
LiveScience Staff Writer
LiveScience.com
Fri Mar 30, 11:35 AM ET
Scientists have taken the temperature of Earth's innards, more than a thousand miles beneath the surface, and found that the mercury there soars to about 6,650 degrees Fahrenheit.
That's nearly as steamy as our sun, where the surface reaches 9,980 degrees.
The findings, detailed in the March 30 issue of the journal Science, will help geologists as they seek to understand how heat is transferred through the planet's interior, which drives all geologic processes like earthquakes and volcanoes, and Earth's magnetic field.
Vital signs
Robert van der Hilst of MIT and his colleagues examined an area beneath Central America by monitoring earthquake-generated seismic waves in real time.
The waves penetrate thousands of miles beneath Earth's surface, effectively taking the temperature of the boundary between Earth's core and the surrounding mantle, if you know how to read the data.
Here is how: The speed of the seismic waves indicates the chemical and physical properties of the material they encounter. By combining this seismic data with mineral physics, the team calculated the temperature at this boundary as well as above and below it.
Specifically, a mineral called perovskite transforms into so-called post-perovskite at certain temperatures and pressures. The location of the core-mantle boundary, a place where abrupt temperature and pressure changes occur, can be identified by locating the exact spot of this mineral transition. The scientists' calculations put this temperature at about 6,650 degrees. Scientists estimate Earth's inner core to be about 9,000 degrees.��
"What is really the important thing is the amount of heat that can flow from the core into the mantle, and the amount of heat is related to the contrast in temperature," van der Hilst said.
Compared to us
All planets are born hot, theory holds, and they cool for billions of years.
Combined with a past study that estimated heat loss in an area beneath the Pacific Ocean, the research team suggests Earth's total heat loss at the core-mantle boundary is about 7.5 to 15 terawatts a year, much higher than previous estimates. Global energy use by humans is about 13 terawatts a year.
From their measurements, the scientists estimate that about one-third of the heat that radiates from Earth's surface into the atmosphere--estimated to be 42 terawatts a year--comes from our planet's core.
Magnetic mysteries
The new temperature measurements will also help geoscientists refine their understanding our planet's magnetic field, which protects us from cosmic rays and solar storms. The field fluctuates over time, for reasons not fully understood, and now and then it even shrinks to zero before flipping polarity entirely.
"We know the Earth's magnetic field is generated and maintained in the liquid outer core of the Earth where you basically have rapid flow of metallic iron," van der Hilst said. Since iron is charged, the swirling iron mix sets up an electric field that gives rise to Earth's magnetic field.
The turbulent flow is the result of convection, and a higher rate of heat loss indicates more convection and a faster flow. With computer simulations, scientists have estimated the amount of energy needed to maintain the magnetic field. But this study is arguably the first to nail down concrete estimates, not computer-modeled ones, of these temperatures, van der Hilst said.
"The heat flow that we measure is larger than what is needed to drive the geo-dynamo, so there is actually more energy down there than people thought," van der Hilst told LiveScience.
Quote from: Gary_C on March 31, 2007, 01:23:51 AM
Quote from: Greg on March 29, 2007, 10:14:25 AM
One thing virtually never discussed is how large a factor soils play in the carbon cycle. Even today, the world's often depleted soils contain more carbon than does all vegetation and the atmosphere combined. Over the past two hundred years, mechanized farming and poor soil conservation worldwide has resulted in billions and billions of tons of carbon released into the atmosphere. Yet we never hear much about farming practices, only the tailpipe/smokestack part of the equation. Soil science is too boring for CNN I guess.
I am a bit puzzled by this. The just released "planting intentions report" shows that we need to average about 150 bushels of corn per acre on 90.5 million acres in order to keep the existing ethanol plants running. Back in the 1950's and 60's farmers were fortunate to average 75-80 bushels of corn per acre. I can guarantee you that we can NOT average 150 bushels per acre on depleted soils. In fact, farmers have available some very sophisticated GPS controlled yield monitoring and fertilization equipment that allows spot feeding of small areas within a large field as well as providing basic needs for the crop to be grown. In fact, I can't imagine anywhere in the world that it would pay to deplete soils of nutriments.
Second, I was under the impression that growing crops, trees, or any other plants removed carbon from the atmosphere. So how has farming and this supposed poor soil conservation "resulted in billions and billions of tons of carbon released into the atmosphere?"
So where are the facts on this "boring soil science?"
Search google on these words "soil carbon loss land use".
Here is a link to one study done:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp050/ndp050.html
Carbon Flux to the Atmosphere From Land-use Changes: 1850 to 1990
Its not farming in and of itself, its poor soil conservation practices AND a centry and a half of the worldwide conversion of grasslands and forestlands with marginal soils over to agriculture.
Fortunately by more widespread use of practices like no-till, soils can recapture HUGE amounts of carbon. I completely agree with you (I think) that corn based ethanol is not the long term answer.
Greg
Greg
You are right, this soil science is just waay too boring and abstract for anyone to pay much attention to these "facts." Plus when the report you cited has to make many "assumptions" to blame clearing forests for farmland and clearing trees for fuelwood to heat homes, it just does not relate to anything we are doing in this country. It appears to be just more of the old retoric attacking the destruction of the rainforests in some other countries and thus does not relate to "mechanized farming" and "soil depletion," at least in this country.
As far as my beliefs in ethanol, I do have to disagree with that professor at Purdue Univ. who apparently has claimed that corn based ethanol is the wrong direction for this country to go. However, I can excuse his claim as I know it was designed to draw attention along with grants and other funds to his research projects. That is the way that research and many new developments are created. There are many, many professors at universities all across the country that are scrambling to be the one that makes the next great discovery in renewable fuel production and I hope they all succeed. We do desperately need for many problems to be solved. However for the present, and past, corn based ethanol was not only the best available opportunity to produce renewable fuel, but it was the only one. It is readily available, has delivery and storage systems already in place, and production could be increased to meet new demands.
In the long term, I believe those ethanol plants will eventually be producing celluosic ethanol, although it could take ten years or more to occur. There are still many questions to be resolved including the enzymes or other means to break down the feed stock, what ever it may be, for conversion into ethanol, where we will grow, harvest, store, and transport large volumes needed, and what it will cost. For example there have already been trials run to produce and bale switchgrass and the cost was far higher than corn. We know it can be grown on poorer ground than corn, but most of that poor land is already tied up and not available.
There are many problems to be solved, but we have reached a point, in part because of the Bush Administration focusing on renewable fuels, that universities, companies, and even some individuals have decided that these problems are just opportunities in disguise and I am confident they will be rapidly solved. So in the meantime, corn will just have to be the right product to get this ball rolling.
By Jeff Franks
Fri Apr 6, 3:53 PM ET
NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - Natural changes in ocean currents are to blame for increased Atlantic hurricane activity in recent years, not man-made global warming as many scientists believe, hurricane forecaster William Gray said on Friday.
"I think the whole human-induced greenhouse gas thing is a red herring," Gray said in a speech at the National Hurricane Conference.
Gray, whose annual forecasts for the hurricane season are closely watched, said the Earth has warmed the past 30 years, but that it was due to flucuations in ocean currents. He predicted a cooling off period would begin in five to 10 years as the currents change again.
"I see climate change as due to the ocean circulation pattern. I see this as a major cause of climate change," Gray told the meteorologists and emergency management specialist who attend the annual conference.
The Atlantic had destructive hurricane seasons in 2004, when four major hurricanes struck Florida, and 2005 when Katrina and Rita badly damaged the U.S. Gulf Coast.
In 2005, there were a record 28 named storms and 15 hurricanes, but last year was much calmer with 10 tropical storms and five hurricanes.
This year, Gray's forecasting team is predicting an active season with 17 named storms, nine of which will become hurricanes.
Periods of intense Atlantic hurricane activity are not unusual and follow the change of a key Atlantic Ocean current that shifts every 30 years or so to bring warmer ocean waters that encourage hurricane formation, Gray said.
He said carbon dioxide levels in the Earth's atmosphere have increased, but periods of hurricane activity preceded the build-up of the gas, which is blamed for warming and is the byproduct mostly of fossil fuel burning.
The changing ocean current "goes back for hundreds of thousands of years," Gray said. "These are natural processes. We shouldn't blame them on humans and CO2."
Gray said the Atlantic current appears to change because of a rise and fall in water salinity.
The combative professor dismissed the work of scientific colleagues who have linked global warming and increased hurricane activity, saying they were simply seeking grant money.
"You've heard a lot of foolishness over the last few years," said Gray.
Natural oscillations? Another approach to climate change from an unfunded source.
http://globalweatheroscillations.com/GlobalWarming.html
Unfounded, perhaps but he does have a definite financial interest in oscillations. It will be interesting to see the peer reviews. I do think there is a lot of truth to weather oscillations and it dovetails nicely with what Dr. Gray (of hurricane forcasting fame) has been saying.
So all the folks living on the coasts only need to tread water until 2040 and they will be ok :D ::)
I'm not certain that its unfounded. I've pretty much hung my hat on relic communities. I've seen them and its the only thing that makes sense. Relic communities are natural forests that are growing out of their range. Stuff like southern pine forests in PA or Canadian spruce forests growing in PA. It just shows that the climate isn't a static force. That gives a physical aspect to the natural oscillation theory.
The problem I have with CO2 is that implies that we can control climate by controlling CO2. I don't think that's the case.
This guy is a retired weather man. One of his points has been that the only grant money given out is if you support the man caused global warming theory. No money for guys like him.
I have two cents to add.
1 cent. A fellow wrote a letter to the newspaper the other day regarding the move to flourescent bulbs from incandescent. In the north, he says, the heat of incandescent bulbs is a valuable addition to the homes and businesses where they are used. He had it all worked out and says that the cost saving to the consumer of using flourescent is offset by the increased cost of oil to make up for the heat of the incandescents. He says there is only a cost saving and environmental saving for those who live in warm climates and use air conditioning. The message I got was buy flourescents and keep heating with wood! I'll be writing a letter myself. These city guys!
2 cent. Google up Pacific Decadal Oscillation for some interesting reading about the Pacific, weather and climate. Most prominent researchers are Dr.s Stephen Hare and Nathan Mantua.
Ooops, small typo there, Ron. That word should be unfunded not unfounded. Sorry about that.
I believe there is merit to both arguments. CO2 emissions may accelerate global warming. Climate oscillations are a known and proven fact. I agree that we are probably being effected by both. I still go back to asking 'So, what are we going to do about it? Are any of the people in the areas likely to be affected building differently?'
I don't know if you can really build any differently. For individual homes, you are hoping they will last longer than a few decades. We'll still have hot and cold spells, so the insulation values will be the same or better. But, homes should be built for the normal weather extremes in an area.
You can make a point about ocean's rising, but most of those homes shouldn't be put on the beach in the first place. Normal weather extremes like hurricanes and storm surge seems to be more on the common sense line and has little to do with GW.
The big thing will be on how they will heat and energize the new buildings. It seems that they still want to hook onto the grid and let the electric companies try to figure out how to make it environmentally safe. I'd love to see some improvements in home grown energy, but it seems the Mother Earth News types aren't as popular as they were 30 years ago. ;) It still remains outside the mainstream, at least in the US.
Ron,
I agree with that post so much.
Building houses differently may help our pocket books, but it probably won't have much to do with the big picture. The reason I say that is because we (The Roman we) tend to disregard the relative time spans with which we are dealing. The earth is 4.5-6 billion years old, give or take. That's Bilion, with a "B". A billion years is just so long that it's hard for us to wrap our minds around even one of them. The first 4 billion years, there was nothing going on that we can relate to as human beings. I know, it had to do with us being here, but it is like comparing the discovery of the ore to make the pan that would eventually be used to bake the cake that is topped with the strawberrys from the back yard; and now we are discussing the size of the strawberry.
Some will stop me here because I am talking mostly of evolution and they believe in creationism. I'm not smart enough know which is right, but evolution can be talked about logically. If Creationism is correct, it's enough to say that "we believe". It just makes for a very dull conversation.
The last 500 million years, at best, is when life appeared. It was single celled, apparently, and we know only from what we can find. That is when stuff began to crawl around.
There were all manner of catastrophes that took place over the next three million years that terminated species and allowed the developement of new ones. The breaking up of the earth's single continant, Pangea, didn't even begin until 180 million years ago.
The end of the dinasaurs occurred with a supposed meteorite crash 65 million years ago, and we still weren't here.
The continents drifted, species came and went, there was an age of fishes, an age of horses, an age of swimming mammals; and they came and went with the movement of continents, the crashing of one continent into another, the volcanic erruptions, the floods, the raising of mountains and, still no humans.
Along about 4 million years ago, if you believe in this line, the apes began to walk upright and we were on our way. We still weren't here.
Along about 2 million years ago the first human-like creature developed, Homo habilis. That's still not us.
Another million and a half years passed and Homo erectus appeared. He still probaby wasn't using fire and we still aren't here yet. This is getting close though. We are now about 500 thousand years ago.
One hundred thousand years ago and, finally, Homo sapiens appear. That's us. It might not be what we picture as us, but it's what the evolutionist say is us.
15 thousand years ago, the last ice age ends. That's only about 7 times the age of Christianity ago.
11 thousand years ago, the wooly mammoth went away.
2 thousand years ago the division of the commonly used age of Christ happened and we began using BC and AD. Some of those who "don't believe", use BCE and CE for common era. They are still talking about the same division of time.
1000 years ago was the Crusades
500 years ago Columbus discovered America. So near in time that we know it was on the 12th of October. 1492.
142 years ago ended the Great American Conflict that some call the Civil War, and just a little before that, the incandescent light bulb.
100 years ago, the mercury lamp was invented
50 years ago bubble wrap appeared.
30 years ago came the cell phone
25 years ago the internet was invented
17 years ago the World Wide Web was invented
......and a bunch of fatalists got together and declared that this is the end of the world because we are destroying it.
Recently we've been given Viagra, and just 6 years ago, a self-contained artificial heart.
If we are going down, we are going down in style. 8) :D
We, as tree people, try to look at forests in the life span of tree rather than a human.
Not too many people have looked at life span of the earth's development and catastrophes relative to the length of time we have been here. It might be that we won't make it through whatever is happening, but neither did the dinasaurs; and the world just kept turning.
Ron, I would count how a house is climately controlled and powered as part of how a house is built. I know it was a major consideration when I designed and built my little bungalow.
Tom, you are absolutely correct. Short of blowing up the earth will continue to turn. However, humans are supposed to be different from all that came before us because we supposedly have the power to reason. Unlike all other creatures we live more in the past and the future than we do in the present. So the question remains ' What should we be doing?' given that there are some strong indications that climate changes are occuring at an increasing rate, the population continues a meteoric ascent, the world resources are becoming stretched rather thin, famine in large parts of the world is becoming a distinct reality and major droughts will likely occur only adding to problem.
Sticking our collective heads in the sand because it won't happen (or at least we hope it won't) in our lifetime just seems to go against the very attitude you rightly attributed to a group of people who think in centuries rather than lifetimes.
In the end the earth wins.
WAR!
We seem to have that one down pat. It does appear to be an effective form of population control.
How about something novel?
Mutual cooperation?
Peace!
How about the logic behind one part of society imposing its will upon another part of society. Ultimately that is what this is all about. The only socially acceptable way of dealing with other people's failure to accept your own beliefs, that has proven results, is war. The annihilation of an offending culture will remove the threat to one's own. The direction of a people can certainly be guided in a most definite and short manner when threatened with their demise.
This Global warning thing has not even been proved to be caused by the human race. If it is, it is being ramrodded by the fringe fatalists of the world. The same kind of fatalists that I saw in "The Loop", in Chicago, in the middle of the previous century. They were dressed in garb that protected them from their imagined attackers, associated them with a century's old society and were waving placards informing the general public that the world was ending.
We keep worrying about using the worlds oil up. We don't even know how much is there. Some think they can make an educated guess, but nobody knows. That stuff is buried under hundreds of feet and perhaps miles of the earth's crust.
Every thing that man comes up with to better his existence, a new faction is created to combat it. People like Gore are no different than the guy on the street corner in Chicago with the sign.
If you want to identify something that you stand a chance of controlling, it's population. The human population of the planet has grown exponentially ever since its creation, which is accepted to be about 100 thousand years ago. You can plead with your neighbor to not have any progeny but you will never be able to stop him without brute force. If the world's population is the problem, then culling it is the solution. Who's going to make that decision and on what basis? Do you select those that you don't like, those that are old, a generation of youth, all males, half of the females? The way it's been done successfully in the past is War.
Males are the half of the population that is responsible for the explosion of a population. A woman can procreate in one year cycles, but is pretty much out of business on two year cycles. That's one reason culling women wouldn't help too much. They could, exponentially, raise the population again, if culled to just a few, but it would take a longer time.
Men, on the other hand, can impregnate many women every day. It doesn't take but one dedicated man, followed by a few dedicated progeny, to get us back where we are today in no time flat. Since men have been dedicated to war, they are expendable in mass, the population has been better controlled by their demise than any other way. It's been done by genocide, war, disease and castration, all with fair results. To get a longer lasting result will require that females be removed as well.
If the planet is in such a turmoil and has been placed in such a perilous position by all of these "people", then its salvation will come from getting rid of the problem, the people.
We have the means at hand to reduce the worlds humanoid population to, pretty much, any place on the above time-line that we deem satisfactory. All we need is for a few of the bigger boys to be goaded by some of the littler boys long enough and vast areas of this world will find itself in a time when they don't know what is across the big water anymore.
The way I see it, if you're in favor of the oil/human relationship to be more favorable, or the corn/human relationship to be more favorable, a good effort could be obtained by becoming an oil magnate or farmer, or, joining the side of the little fellow who is doing all of the goading, because eventually, the big guy is going to step on you. If you just happen to be a big guy, hang on a minute while I get out of the way.
I yield. Bring on the nukes and let's quit farting around. :D
QuotePosted by: OneWithWood
Insert Quote
I yield. Bring on the nukes and let's quit farting around.
Has anyone been watching the Discovery Channel, with all their facts about a guy named Khan, that developed a way to use Uranium to make a Bomb, using centrifuges ??? No need to make Enriched Uranium, anymore. It's a REAL shortcut to bomb making. ::) :o
There have been thousands of these Centrifuges made and sold or traded. Hussein was supposed to have gotten them. That's ONE reason he's gone.
Libya has the bomb. Pakistan and India have the bomb. North Korea is a prime suspect ???There is evidence that MOST of the middle east countries have the bomb, just not talking about it ???
Israel has the Bomb. Rumors are, the Saudis have the means to make the Bomb.
Won't have to worry much longer about Global Warming ::) ::) ::)
But, historically, 2 generations after the war, the population is past the pre war level. If there's one thing we do well, its make more of us. Course we have ways of making big war that we've not tried on any scale before.
Pick a place on the time scale above and I'll bet somebody could get us there. :D
Here's the info y'all have been looking for. Just found this on Yahoo news.
QuoteBut the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-sponsored group, says global warming caused by humans has led to an increase in stronger hurricanes.
It definately has lead to an increase in hot air! :D
Did someone call me? :D
I am watching China as the source of an explosion of some sort. With their rule of one child only and most of them wanting a male, there will be an over supply of men. This will lead to an especially unstable society. How do they get rid of all these men?
It has already been suggested.
The one child policy will lead to labor shortages in the near future. The expansive growth that you have been seeing is unsustainable. Fewer workers will mean higher wages and higher priced goods.
I talked to a guy yesterday that has made trips to Uganda. He says the Chinese are there building big dams and using it for hydroelectricity. Wonder what they're up to. Could it be that are grooming 3rd world countries for their cheap labor? Just a thought.
China want's to trump our "only Superpower" status by becoming the "only Megapower." I personally don't think they'll make it, but I won't be here to see if I'm right. I applaud their effort to get their population under control, though. Even if their plan is flawed, they were in that old position of, "We gotta do SOMETHING, even if it's wrong!"
On this side of the big salty pond, we keep pumping billions of $ into fertility research. ??? ::) For cryin' out loud, we wouldn't even be having this discussion if it were not for the fact that we already have too many people! Folks have got to get away from this mentality that puts procreation on a pedestal as the ultimate means to personal gratification. What's the big deal here? I can tell you this; I am every kind of Pappy that a Pappy can be. I got one natural child, one adopted child, and 5 stepchildren. From those, I have 5 natural Grandkids, plus one from the adopted guy, plus 8.7 from the step-bunch, plus one GGkid, also from the steps. I'm da Pappy of all Pappies! I can also tell you this; Every one of those kids is just as special, and just as aggravating, as if they all came from the same place! You don't have to reproduce your own genes to get satisfaction out of raising a kid. You can get that satisfaction out of raising a kid that needs a home and a family. Heck, I know plenty of people that shouldn't have even considered reproducing themselves. There are some gene pools that need draining! In my always humble opinion, we should offer a tax deduction for the first child, none for the second, and a penalty for all after that. Maybe if we put it in monetary terms, folks would look at it differently.
DanG - so I guess I know how you feel about paying people to have more kids ;D
For the whole fuel ( esp fossil ? ? ? ) issue - I like to think of it like a bunch of trees - you can cut some down but sooner or later someone's gonna have to plant some for the next guy ( grandchild ? ) to cut and near as I can recall it takes awhile to grow a gallon of unleaded. Now I'm in the diesel camp - I like that Rudolph Diesel designed his engines to run on peanut oil so farmers wouldn't need nasty old businessmen. Course someone's already said iffen we could grow it they'd find a way to outlaw or tax it to death.
Interesting stuff about hydrogen - h2 + o = energy and h2o. Split h2o and you get back h2 and o to start over - oh if it were so easy.
QuoteThere are some gene pools that need draining! In my always humble opinion, we should offer a tax deduction for the first child, none for the second, and a penalty for all after that.
:D :D :D That's one of the funniest things I've heard in a while.
Mr Gore is flying back to Stockholm in a private jet to receive his Nobel Political Peace Prize. He will burn more fuel on the trip than I use in a year.
But you aren't as important as he is, what do you expect?
I too beleive in global warming as without it North America would still be under a glacier. I think what irritates everyone is the fact that so many people have taken a natural occuring phenomenon which has been going on for at least millions or billions of years and turning it into a mocked up crises which they claim to have control over by raising money for a solution. Reading that possibly the earth has warmed six tenths of one degree over the last 100 years assuming that the thermometers 100 years ago were as accurate as today I dont think I have to worry about my Great Grandchildren overheating.
It is as if nobody had a science class in school. We were all taught that there have been several glacial periods that covered many parts of the world and the dinasaur fossils found in the Western deserts of the US lived there when it was tropical and the same goes for the new dinasaur finds in what is now freezing cold Patagonia on the tip of South America.
Here are a couple of easy to read and seem to be quite unbiased links concerning our history. I am afraid that as important as some people apparantly think they are the cycles will continue.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_glaciation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Something is changing.... I was born in a converted Ice House that my great grandparents owned. The "Ice Pond" next to it has not froze in my life time and apparently used to every year.
Quote from: jim king on October 21, 2007, 12:03:10 PM
I too beleive in global warming as without it North America would still be under a glacier. I think what irritates everyone is the fact that so many people have taken a natural occuring phenomenon which has been going on for at least millions or billions of years and turning it into a mocked up crises which they claim to have control over by raising money for a solution.
Your man Al Gore has made a ton of money off of this sort of scam and was about to make more on it until the skeptics made their cases mainstream. His movie sucked and he gets the emmy for that - and then the Nobel peace prize for crusading this big critical effort (never mind that the figures he used in his movie have already been proven inaccurate). All this hype for a ridiculous process that was around long before any of us were and will be around well after any of us are.
I get all this "carbon credit" junk in my e-mail box, invitations to meetings that are going to cost me $400, etc...what a bunch of nonsense. None of them are worth a penny.
The bottom line, and I've been stating this for at least 5 years on the usenet and other forums is that it's mostly fabricated scare tactics to fool the wealthy out of their money so that researchers can get paid. Period...and it's working.
So why would anybody care or believe that global warming is a scam? If it is as you say that Al is just scaring the rich out of their money to pay research scientist why would you care? Are you rich or a research scientist?
The bottom line is that it is a calculated scientific fact that we are dumping more CO2 into the environment than the environment can handle..... They could call it cotton candy if they wanted too......it doesn't change the fact that it is having an impact on the globe.
Don't belive the science if that is easier for you... We are pretty much screwed no matter if its real or not. If Global warming don't get us nature will some other way sooner or later. History has proven that more than once and nobody needs Al Gore to tell them that that is fact.
Here's the problem I've been seeing with the man caused global warming. They say the science proves it, but, I have yet to see any conclusive study that says that CO2 actually is the culprit. I've seen both sides of this arguement where one says that more CO2 is the cause of global warming, and another where global warming causes more CO2.
Here's some science I do know. Back about 750-800 years ago, things were warm. It was so warm that the Vikings had settlements on Iceland, Greenland, and thought to have made it to Canada. They didn't walk. At the same time, farming records show that wheat was harvested right about where it is now. Grapes were also farmed in England. This period was known as the Medieval warming, and both sides agree that it happened.
There was also a time when it was pretty cold. That was the little Ice Age and that happened in the 1600s. It should be noted that there was very little sunspot activity at the time.
I've talked to some foresters that have worked in relic communities. These are stands of trees that are growing outside of their normal range. How did they get there? The common theory is that at one time the climate supported the range in that area. The climate changed and the tree's range retreated to what it is today. There are pockets that still support those trees. I've seen both northern species and southern species that are in relic communitites.
For me, I think its a little of both. Being a forester, I've always preached good land stewardship. I also think that stewardship extends to other sources of pollution, be it land, water or air. Some people live it, some just talk it.
You are absolutely right, the climate changes, always has and always will. The earth went into the ice age without the help of man. So far man has for the most part adapted.. Sea levels have risen in the past and they are on the rise now. There are signs of prehistoric roads on the bottom of the ocean so at one time those sites were high and dry......
Or the alien from The abyss has visited us in the past and built them there ;)
The climate is getting warmer.... that is not in dispute. The science in question is whether man is too blame or is it a natural cycle? Most believe that carbon output in to blame and science is hoping to prove it. That is what science does; so what I don't understand is why some people are so dead against doing and paying for that research?
My feeling on the issue is that the atmosphere is like a river. If you dump in the river the river is going to continue to flush itself out, but eventually will become over burdened and die. If you stop dumping in the river it will flush itself out and become viable again. So regardless of whether CO2 emissions is causing global warming or not, we need to start limiting dumping in the atmosphere because it does have an impact.
I think you'll have to agree that both sides of the argument seems to have a common ground. That is, we ought to be doing something to limit pollution. As you say, we can't keep dumping into the air.
But, when the argument centers on who's right, then money gets wasted just to prove points. I'm not certain it is provable. It doesn't matter who's right. It just polarizes society and we get into a do nothing type of situation.
Wouldn't it just be better if we said that there is warming; it could be natural or it could be manmade? Then, get on with things.
I contend it would be smarter to use research money on cleaner fuel technology. Its a benefit that both sides could use. The oil age is just about at an end, and we have nothing to replace it. Our economy will not advance until a new fuel source is found.
Mark Twain said "Everyone complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it" Things certainly haven't changed much. ;)
Maybe the world could use a good "thinning".
Quote from: cantcutter on November 10, 2007, 05:26:04 PM
So why would anybody care or believe that global warming is a scam? If it is as you say that Al is just scaring the rich out of their money to pay research scientist why would you care? Are you rich or a research scientist?
I have never been wealthy by U.S. standards, but I have worked as a research scientist; not a principal investigator, but rather someone working in the lab (tree genetics/G.M.O.s) trying to produce results for the P.I. in the academic realm.
QuoteThe bottom line is that it is a calculated scientific fact that we are dumping more CO2 into the environment than the environment can handle.....
Actually, that statement is
not a scientific fact. All scientific studies are relative based on the controls and external information. In this case, we have neither the controls nor the information to make a prudent scientific judgment regarding how much CO2 "the environment can handle".
Are we headed for a period of increased global temperatures and world-wide environmental reaction because of this increase? Possibly, but the probability cannot be calculated. However, decisions are being made regardless of that little misnomer.
My point is that these "carbon credit" trading schemes are severely jumping the gun. I find the whole matter absurd, really. The U.S. congress is debating several bills surrounding this whole idea that humans can somehow "stop" or "reduce" this global warming by absorbing the carbon in young trees that grow faster, etc. It's the old "any management is better than no management" ideal, which is based on ignorance - not stupidity, but ignorance...You cannot manage something unless you understand the likely outcomes of the management decisions.
From a scientific point of view, the entire topic is sheer madness. It's not about science at all really, it's about politics. Mark my words: by the time they're done with all this, the outcome will raise taxes and restrict citizens livelihoods. Economically, it will be the equivalent of a casino: Don't create any money, just pass it around some so it can wind up in more people's hands.
As far as Gore goes, his awards were of the entertainment and peace variety, not the scientific variety. In any case, I seriously wonder about the reasoning capabilities of the panel judges. Anyone who has half a brain would have found his movie horrid and basically, his ability to be a world traveler and use fuel resources many times larger than the average American and yet consider/sell himself as a "environmental crusader" and have success at that is flat out sickening....
...but then again, Idiocracy (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/)) is happening at a faster pace than in that movie, which is quite a shame.
QuoteThey could call it cotton candy if they wanted too......it doesn't change the fact that it is having an impact on the globe.
Well at least cotton candy is a reasonably measurable commodity.
QuoteDon't belive the science if that is easier for you... We are pretty much screwed no matter if its real or not. If Global warming don't get us nature will some other way sooner or later. History has proven that more than once and nobody needs Al Gore to tell them that that is fact.
It's not global warming that will cause the human race the most misery. It's socio-economics. Who is in control, and where the money trail is leading. Right now it's leading to CENTCOM in Iraq, where there are jets dumping payloads of fuel at high altitude (so it will evaporate before it hits the ground) every practice run to pad next fiscal year's DOD budget. I think it's clear to most where that sort of decision is going to lead.
Quote from: Ron Wenrich on November 11, 2007, 10:44:51 AM
I think you'll have to agree that both sides of the argument seems to have a common ground. That is, we ought to be doing something to limit pollution. As you say, we can't keep dumping into the air.
We are doing some things to limit pollution (catalytic converters are an example of this), but it's not enough. Stop using leaf blowers instead of rakes, etc. might be a start. This society is gung-ho on gasoline and power implements. It's luxury gone wild essentially. Americans driving 10 miles to their fast food restaurant to get a burger with beef shipped there from Bolivia. That's America. What's going to stop it from happening? An economic depression - that's what.
QuoteMark Twain said "Everyone complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it" Things certainly haven't changed much. ;)
someone else said "Everyone wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die". Nope, they sure haven't.
Just so you know - a student at the University of Alberta did a study on catalytic converters and observed that they do not work in weather below -10 :o That was several years ago, wonder who listened to him? :-\
I think the most reasonable approach is to not think of the earth as a dumping ground. If you have waste, dispose of it properly and don't produce something without first thinking how you are going to get rid of the waste.
For example, if you have a sawmill - what are you going to do with all of the sawdust? If you are portable, no big problem, but if you are stationary, you could really hurt where you are from the runoff from your waste product.
It is not reasonable to think as there are more and more of us that the world can continue to be our dumping ground. Carbon Neutrality for me is just this. Try to live in a way to minimize your waste, and if you have to generate some waste, figure out a way to offset it.
Otherwise we are all like those who live on a stream and each one dumps their sewage into it - since the stream can obviously handle a little bit of sewage. But it can't if everyone acts like a slob.
Is our climate change due to our dumping of CO2 - not sure. But is it reasonable to think we can dump and dump and dump with no effect forever? Until we KNOW the limit of the earth to handle it, it would seem reasonable not to invite disaster by finding out the hardway.
When someone says that we aren't the cause but can not say at what level we would be the cause, I get pretty suspicious. Dump things in the streams and you polute the water and kill what lives in the water. Keep dumping things in the air and we probably will have the same result - or so it would seem reasonable to me.
Quote from: crtreedude on November 12, 2007, 08:49:46 AM
I think the most reasonable approach is to not think of the earth as a dumping ground. If you have waste, dispose of it properly and don't produce something without first thinking how you are going to get rid of the waste.
Absolutely.
QuoteFor example, if you have a sawmill - what are you going to do with all of the sawdust? If you are portable, no big problem, but if you are stationary, you could really hurt where you are from the runoff from your waste product.
Well, even if you're portable - what affect will the dumping of that sawdust have in the location where you are dumping it? That may seem like a negligible question, but such an action might have a considerable consequence.
I used to have an old boss who went through WWII and lived through the depression. He got one leg blown off in the war and lived the remainder of his days with an artificial limb. He made millions in local real estate investment after the war. I was walking across a parking lot with him once and he used his 75 year old good leg to support himself while picking up a penny off of the parking lot. He made a comment about another person who used to work there who would shake his head at it - but the bottom line is every small change counts. Now, if only everyone could live by that rule...
QuoteIt is not reasonable to think as there are more and more of us that the world can continue to be our dumping ground. Carbon Neutrality for me is just this. Try to live in a way to minimize your waste, and if you have to generate some waste, figure out a way to offset it.
Otherwise we are all like those who live on a stream and each one dumps their sewage into it - since the stream can obviously handle a little bit of sewage. But it can't if everyone acts like a slob.
From a purely ethical standpoint, the stream cannot handle any sewage without affecting those who depend on it. The natural resources belong to the whole of us...but from a legal standpoint, they do not. The next question practically asks itself.
QuoteIs our climate change due to our dumping of CO2 - not sure. But is it reasonable to think we can dump and dump and dump with no effect forever? Until we KNOW the limit of the earth to handle it, it would seem reasonable not to invite disaster by finding out the hardway.
When someone says that we aren't the cause but can not say at what level we would be the cause, I get pretty suspicious.
Well...it's sort of like any other immeasurable quantity, isn't it...like if I say there is no God, but I can't prove it? :o Would you be suspicious then? That's the beauty of this subject, because it is immeasurable in whole and thus unprovable as an effect. You can investigate ice cores, you can investigate aerials photos of glaciers (which by the way have means other than just heat to cause the disappearance), you can look at the tiny view of historical records and ultra small sample calculations over time which all (and more) have been/are being done, but because the problem is so expansive, we can see that the globe has heated and cooled to enormous extents (relative to the way we view our environment), but what is causing all the ruckus down here and where is it headed?: The answer is unknown, so as long as the researchers say we need to stop it to save our species from extinction, the grant money keeps pouring in. :-[
QuoteDump things in the streams and you polute the water and kill what lives in the water. Keep dumping things in the air and we probably will have the same result - or so it would seem reasonable to me.
...and me as well, but the question...the one that asks itself... is how do "the people" create a societal condition that is based on demand of products and services, but yet is not associated with the inevitable emissions produced by the manufacturing and logistics of those commodities?
As long as folks have money and the means to pollute, we'll do it while giving no more of a thought to it than the breath of air we breathe.
Heck, even "forests: a renewable resource" is only renewable to the extent of the fossil fuels we use to extract the products. Fossil fuels are not renewable (at least not for a long, long time).
Carbon trading as it has been introduced to me is nothing more than another scam to make money - you can't "buy" the environment back to health.
I recently read an historical novel about the tall sailing ships. When they were becalmed in the doldrums the ocean would turn brown around the ship. When it became foul enough to bother him the captain would order out the rowboats and tow the ship to cleaner water.
Nomads all over the earth move not only to find greener pastures but to leave brown. The areas left, given time, would restore and regenerate themselves.
I think we should move as soon as we can invent a better rowboat.