With this outcry on "Global Warming"
how long do you think it will take before some politician puts his beady eyes on CO2 and starts moving for more taxes on the use of this refrigerant?
discuss?
Printable View
With this outcry on "Global Warming"
how long do you think it will take before some politician puts his beady eyes on CO2 and starts moving for more taxes on the use of this refrigerant?
discuss?
As absurd as burying CO2 in the sea bed - perhaps the p*t*c*ns mentioned should be bound up in chains and cement to join it - VAT and other taxes are already applied.
What of other legit uses of CO2: fire-extinguishers, welding, suspension systems...? What proportion of CO2 release can be attributed to "chemically pure" CO2 rather than gas guzzlers, power plants etc?
A rather interesting look from the other side...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...78442170&hl=en
Well, someone will either try this or...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tycho
someone will start complaining about the use of CO2 as a refrigerant and it's impact on global warming.:D
How exciting it would be to hear someone complain about a CO2 leak causing more damage.:p
Hi Tycho,
Your famous countryman, Prof G Lorenzten, pointed out nearly 15 years ago that since the CO2 used in refrigeration systems is generally reclaimed from the waste streams of industrial processes it should be considered to have a GWP of zero. I guess on that basis you could even argue that it ought to be -1!! Follow that thought to the logical conclusion of taxes on greenhouse gases as you have in Norway and you could charge the government a "tax" everytime you install a CO2 system - I like the concept!!
cheers
Andy P
Very professionally done - I watched the whole thing in bite-sized chunks. However then I found the attached counterblast - the look from the other other sideQuote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...76216573&hl=en
It is a bit long too, and not nearly so slick, but well worth persevering. Also found this:
http://www.chase-it.com/climate/The_...A_Rebuttal.pdf
Happy reading.....
Cheers
Andy P
.
Regarding the original post and its subject, is anyone speaking from a position of knowledge?
.
I doubt it as most trying to refute climate change have no clue at all about what they are trying to refute, but on the same token thoughs who are trying to claim the sky is falling are not helping to educate the public <_<
3 or more years following and learning I still just say research it for your self. and doen't liscen to one source!
To sum up the issue:
We produce massive amounts of CO2 24/7.
Nature evolved where most CO2 was generated during summer.
During summer all plants are at their peak rate at which they consume CO2, this matches when most animals are active generating CO2.
With our technology we produce most CO2 during winter where plants are most inactive, compounding the problem even more via deforestation. out side of the plants natural peak cycle all this CO2 is not consumed and thus builds up in the atmosphere.
This is a very very basic outline of one of the Major issues that make up climate change.
Until someone can have cold proof of what exactly is happening it's all speculation. The scientist change sides as much as people without a clue do. For someone to say they know exactly what is going on in itself comes from a standpoint. Till the people that devote their entire life ALL agree I think it's assuming that your favorite side is correct.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...n_id=&Issue_id
I personally think it's rather arrogant that we as humans think we can control something like the earth. The second we get out of line she will put us back in our place. That's my uneducated opinion. :D
The earth will after we reach a threshold of dumping billions^20 of CO2 it will wipe out vast majority of life.
We effected the Entire earth all ready CFCs, Now we are doing it with CO2, if you only take 2 months to learn about it you'll see it for your self, but you have to do so impartially.
That's the same scare tactic being used now.:(Quote:
Originally Posted by The MG Pony
If you want to be impartial and objective look at both of the points of view (skeptics or proponents for). The truth is somewhere in the middle. Neither can be 100% correct as the science is too imperfect to forecast with certainty.
The weather guys can't even forecast the weather a week in advance and get it totally right, so, how are we going to do better by decades in the future?
If there ever was a time for critical thinking this is one subject were it is most needed.
Personally, I think the CO2 viewpoint is too microscopic. If you want to understand how a whole system works you have to take a macro view instead. That is the same for refrigeration systems too.:cool:
it's a fact though, there is no getting around it, the current course we are on. Once a threshold temp is reached methane hydrate deposits melt releasing tons of even more potent green house gas, then temp rises even more to a temp range our type of life will not survive, how do you rationalize this simple fact to call it a scare tactic?
Life will go on, just not with our type of animal.
CO2 is just a part of the over all issue, like you said the system is much bigger. The weather is not a good example, this fluctuates quickly, Atmospheric CO2 and other green house gasses behave more predictably.
Problem is though, most the skeptics are flat out lying or using bad science, 90% of the evidence is on one side of the camp, whats that tell you? It is like the inteligent design camp, all the evidence is on science side, whats this tell us?
I agree CO2 might be easier to measure based on fossil fuel use, etc. However, I seriously doubt anything on a macroscopic scale is total predictable or behaves in that manner. Weather is a fast moving target in our terms (daily, monthly, etc.).Quote:
Originally Posted by The MG Pony
Climate change also has historical data for hundreds or thousands of years, while daily weather has only been measured statistically for about 150 years or so.
You can take data from any two sources and compare it, but the base assumption is the two data sets have to be relevant to correlate.
The methane hydrates is an interesting idea. If the sea water warms up, the hydrate melts, so goes the theory. But you should also view the aspect of CO2 solubility in sea water too, which was presented as an opposing argument in the video.
It tells me that you already have your mind made up and everyone with a dissenting point of view is a heretic. Remember, he who shouts the loudest does not have to be correct.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by The My Pony
There are things we can do to reduce the CO2 levels, but is the sky actually falling....?
And why on earth, would anyone believe a politician to tell us the truth about anything.:confused:
No I started totally neutral, after reviewing things for last 4 years I have started to see the contrast.
Glad you mentioned the ocean, as water absorbs CO2 it becomes acidic killing certain life there as well, mainly it will help to kill the plant like plankton further reducing the earths ability to sink CO2.
See how all the issues cascade into each other?
Educate your self and take no ones word at face value, once you read the opponents arguments and analyze them critically they fall apart. This seems to tell me some thing. Look at the intelligent design movement, you see the same tactics of twisting the reality of the situation and flat out lying. Don't take my word for it, research it critically, and really analyze their arguments.
Is the sky falling now? No, but because it isn't shall we wait till it does? It will be much harder to fix it at that point if we do, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!
Why wait till it is too late as the saying goes, by doing nothing we allow it to get worse rather then fixing it, again look at the whole CFC thing, should we have waited till the Ozone was decimated be for being concerned?
I don't believe any one for face value, I took the time to look up things for my self, and again after you get familiar with it you'll start to see thoughs trying to oppose it the most are not even trying to under stand the issue, and are not even using basic science. I say yet again learn it for your self.
At least we agree on that.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by The MG Pony
Do any of us have Phd's is geophysics? I know I'm not so how can I argue with what some say (in either direction) That was like me discussing with Lana....I thought I knew what I was talking about. Turned out I didn't because I was looking at it from my Point of view. After discussing I realized how much I really don't know.
Let me ask this.....Just 30 years ago they were predicting another ice age coming.....Now they are predicting we all fall down in a big cloud of death and CO2.
You ever follow the money trail? :D No money to be had in saying everything is fine and dandy just live your lives as you were.
I'll be the first to admit this is way over my head as a subject matter. I tend to look at the science I understand and seems reasonable and logical and then use a highly scientific method I like to call the smell test.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
If one group tries to shout over the others and their is a lot of hysterics and and too much emotion to rush to judgement, then this is a red flag for me.
Obviously, something is occurring and I think it falls into two possible categories; natural or man-made.
Every so often some emotionally charged issue comes along and a lot of people rush to save the world. Well intentioned in some cases, misguided in others.
A case-in-point...Logging was practically banned in Washington State to save the forests. The lumber companies who owned the land could not do anything with it, so they started to sell it off to the highest bidders. guess what happened. The purchasers decided to start building new homes, shopping malls, etc.
Now the trees are really gone for good and the urban sprawl takes over.
Who really won, or who shot themselves in the foot?
Look at all of the posts on this site about something relatively simple like refrigeration systems. Some of these can be very difficult to fix. Then, you take something like planetary issues or solar system related and say... I have the answer! That does not pass my smell test.
I think a much better avenue is to spend more time investigating this as it is similar to any good argument. Both sides might have a grain of truth and the answer lies somewhere in the middle.
A good point. Money talks and more money talks louder. I don't think you are too far from part of the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
Theres good money in scaring people....It only takes the first domino to fall for this to materialize. Once "people" see the fear and what people are willing to do to "not die of global warming" it's like a bad disease that spreads like the umpa lumpa virus :D (you end up shrinking and turning orange and working in a chocolate factory.) It's nasty watch it.
Rushing is bad for ANY thing, but if you watch care fully at the scientific evidence and ignore the hype you see the boring mundane evidence.
Right now we have more to lose by staying with hydrocarbons any way. Even if you disregard climate change, Oil, coal is out dated, it is dirty and inefficient, but it is easy right now, time for a change and to progress to better systems.
No one is saying they have a finite solution, but we do certainly have a dam good idea on where we should not go and where we should head. And dumping more CO2 and other pollutants is not the direction we should head. the amount of crap you have to sort through will bore you to death and takes allot of coffe!
Problem is we have to many idiots like PETA & Green peace who don't help the issue by adding so much garbage and emotional pleading into the issue rather then solid facts, problem is we are an emotional animal and it gets results and thus you have groups that try to excessively monopolize on it. and for the money who has the most to loose? seems to be the oil companies have allot of money to loose by not clouding the issue. Problem is they don't see there is even more money to be gained by progressing to future & better fuels.
There is no point in stagnating, every thing is to be gained by moving forward and every thing to loose by refusing to try and better the way our society treats their environment.
We have changed the Shape of the earth, what makes you think we can't change the way the atmosphere works? Rather daft I think We did it once with CFCs and we are again doing it with green house gasses, and the factual evidence grows constantly. again look at the parallels of the Science Vs the ID group, One side Offers evidence open to be proven wrong, the other side dodges and lies and more? Why do they not offer any solid reports or evidence? They say it isn't happening yet the evidence is not agreeing with them, they are not providing equal evidence, No evidence is evidence that it doesn't exist. IE they have no evidence that it is not happening, best they can do is twist the current evidence.
The question is what can we do to fix it or not make it worse.
Facts are: We are effecting the climate via our way of handling our out put.
Question: How do we better our selfs to not further damaging the climate that is sustainability implementable in our current economical situation.
If you care to, learn the facts, and take the time to read the bulk, I mean the core evidence, not the emotional pleading from either side, just like the Evo Vs ID you'll find one side has the cards, don't take my word for it see it for your self!
Yeah China needs to work on the coal plants. But tell them they have to slow down their booming economy see what a billion people do.
"China will build 500 coal-fired power plants in the next decade, at the rate of almost one a week. This massive appetite for coal means equally huge greenhouse gas emissions."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=9947668
Let me ask one more simple question. Are we somehow making chemicals and making gases now? I was under the impression all that stuff was already here and we just use it as we need.
"Surface Area: Land area, about 148,300,000 sq km, or about 30% of total surface area; water area, about 361,800,000 sq km, or about 70% of total surface area."
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/DanielChen.shtml
"ABSTRACT
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well‑known but under‑appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2‑rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere.
Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation. Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere."
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/
The worlds population side by side takes up a space just a little bigger than the state of Texas in the United States. I find it hard to believe to say the least we have much of an effect on anything mother earth has to say.
With that there is nothing wrong with trying to go green. No need to leave anything worse than when it was given to us. I just don't think in my personal opinion that we have much of an effect at all on the earths choice of which gas takes up the atmosphere and how much of concentration of each.
China should use Nuclear, it has its own issues but does not produce nearly the amount of pollution in form of CO2, it would buy time to come up with far better methods.
That article makes a sever flaw in their logic. CO2 release starts at summer where plants are the most active absorbing it and using it.
We are actively decreasing the primary plant that does this, trees, compounded by the fact we produce most of our CO2 during the plants natural off time of winter.
So he misses how other factors balanced it out, Now how ever we are removing the natural balances and artificially releasing more CO2 then can be effectively sunk, that and CO2 is not the only compounding thing. So he failed to view the whole issue and totally failed to list out the whole CO2 cycle and how our activities have altered the CO2 cycle.
So lets see yet again, only telling us half the info, neglecting to mention compounding factors, improper representation. for some reason I am not surprised.
The ocean does indeed influence the CO2 cycle but it is not a magic sink for it, our ability to produce CO2 faster then the oceans or plants abilities to deal with it is the issue.
So many seem to miss this simple point, as the planet and life evolved it all evolved balanced to its self, ie all the animals (Yes that includes us obviously) all of our CO2 out put matched the plants & Oceans intake. bacteria and animals produce most during summer, plants consume most during summer. Combustion how ever has changed that, we produce even more CO2 & faster then any natural system has ever evolved to handle.
So how is it hard to imagine or under stand that with our technology we can have such an impact? It is rather clear when you think of it critically.
We cut down massive amounts of Forrest and burn fuel at a massive rate that exceeds the amount any volcano could ever put out in one eruption constantly, The ocean and plant life never evolved in a way to handle this.
Where the guy trying to under play our production of CO2 totally misses the mark is due to our technology we are able to out put far more CO2 then the natural feed back systems have evolved to handle, right now the natural feed back systems are working but are getting stressed. Where both of them missed the mark is in the CO2 feed back, some saw it some didn't, as CO2 increases so does plants health to absorb it thus plant life increases which absorbs more CO2, Now the problem! We are destroying plant life via deforestation and urban sprawl So we kill off a part of the feed back system.
Think of Forrest as if it where a thermostat, what happens when you short the thermostat?
Lets assume we hadn't damaged the Forrest and stopped all artificial CO2 out put, and we all kept warm by using solar heaters and did that to cook food with, after X amount of time CO2 levels would balance out to natural levels via mutually interfering fed back. But we have damaged 1 part of the feed back and have increased the other part of feed back so now they are disproportional out of balance.
Again though CO2 is one thing, Deforestation is another, growing out put of CO2 yet another, artificial green house gases yet another.
but this is just an article attacking one guys opinion against another's.
What really needs to be don is the same thing Most smart scientists do with ID twits, is stop debating them or wasting time responding to them individually, it just helps them cloud the waters more with useless garbage and makes them look as if they have credibility.
rather what they do now, as a solid community, answer the BS that ID puts out as such they need to handle all the ones saying "we can't damage the environment" crowed do not address them individually but just as a solid report.
I gave the ID crowed the benefit of the doubt and read their stuff as well, but after doing so learnt that they are not even worth wasting the time to even attempt to correct.
I can only show you how I have understood the issue and tell you in a way that I can verbalize it, the only way you can understand it is by doing several months worth of reading like I did. You won't get it from one persons opinion (<I include my own in that statement)nore will you get it from one artical.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...l_warming.html
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/...svFacts_05.pdf
http://www.thedebatehour.com/ftopict...te.html+change < A nice debate.
http://www.thedebatehour.com/ftopict...te.html+change
We will find out one day.
And in the mean time lets do some thing to minimize our impact ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy P
I was hoping for a more heated debate and get to point this out myself... guess you guys arent that stupid after all :D *ducks and runs*
I like the debate article...nice find.
Another example of hysterical lunatics who know what's best for us by stretching the truth.:rolleyes:
He who shouts the loudest has to be right...