1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Global Warming

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Buzz112, Feb 8, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,683
    348
    Dec 9, 2006
    Millions of years is one thing while a few [couple of] hundred years is another.
    That would be: "The reputed largest historical eruption occurred in 1815 from the volcano Tambora, an explosive caldera located on the island of` Sumbawa, Indonesia. The eruption injected so much ash into the upper atmosphere that, at least in the northern hemisphere, there was a cooling of the atmosphere, which resulted in snow in Boston in July and a faminine across parts of Europe." [http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp7/asia/question3381.html] These effects are in the ice core and tree ring data of the last 1,000 years. While it was a "blip", the magnitude doesn't come close to the changes in the past 150 years.
    Which makes me wonder where the shows are for the "anti-global warming"? My power company is running ads about methane and cows. I don't know how many cows there are today, but wonder if this is such a "new" problem, what about the buffalo herds 200 years ago? I can't think the world has significantly more grazers now than before.
    If you're using cold water, how much energy are you using?
    Since it's getting warmer, isn't this a "good thing"?
    Currently hydrogen comes from fossil fuels. There is some solar hydrogen production, but the current level of technology can't produce enough to make it viable. Until the production of hydrogen can be solved, it's just another dead end.
    Another dead end. Alcohol has around an eighth the energy per gallon of gasoline, so "per gallon" you'll get less distance. Brazil uses alcohol, but they make it from sugar cane. In the process they burn the used cans to fuel it. The net energy "gain" is significantly greater than using corn.
    Soybean bio-diesel maybe be an answer but we all need to buy diesels to use it.
     
  2. txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
  3. txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
  4. veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,683
    348
    Dec 9, 2006
    I really don't understand "admit nothing"? Coal fueled the start of the industrial revolution. I have never separated coal from oil. They're both fossil fuels that when burned release CO2 that was taken out of the atmosphere millions of years ago. Before the industrial revolution, we burned coal and wood, but the amount was significantly less since this was just to heat our homes and cook.
    Please give some link to it, since the only data I've seen [the 1,000 year ice core and tree rings] show "historical rises and dips" that have only been a third or a quarter of the rise in the last 150 years.
    I cringe every time too, from both sides spouting opinions with no data or references for me to learn the "how or why" they come to their opinions.
    I asked for posters to watch the show that I pointed to earlier and then critique it.
    I really want to understand both sides so I can make up my own mind. So far I see what "looks" reasonable that points one direction. I can understand the mechanism how man could change the balance of the planet by releasing carbon that nature removed millions of years ago. It's just simple [high school] chemistry.
    Now is this really what is happening?
    Where is the "data" that points to it not happening?
    If you're "in the middle" but only get data from one side, "the middle" tends to move towards that side.
    So far the "other side" seems to just be "I don't believe it".
    If I want to "not believe it" I want to learn why & see some information that seems as reasonable as what has been given supporting it.
     
  5. FogCutter

    FogCutter Godfather

    382
    0
    Nov 6, 2006
    Has anyone noticed when the temperature and CO2 trends really started upward when the international community banned commercial whaling? And sure enough, as whale populations swell, temperatures rise and CO2 levels climb.

    So we can point to an inverse relationship between global warming and whaling.

    That settles it. I'm giving harpoons to everyone on my Christmas list this year.

    Thar she blows!
     
  6. veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,683
    348
    Dec 9, 2006
    Was "that" the slight glitch in the curve for both?
    I guess not since the whales couldn't reproduce that fast. I mean they're not rabbits are they?
     
  7. TBoneit

    TBoneit Hall Of Fame

    2,294
    7
    Jul 27, 2006
    As cold as my cold water gets I use warm water for washing dishes and the containers. That wasn't even what I was thinking about actually as that hadn't occurred to me. What I was trying to say was the water wasted washing out recycleables. I was also thinking of the advertisments I've seen saying to watch water usage. Example the regulations banning the sales of the old type toilets and requiring the new low water usage toilets for repairs and new construction which leads me to believe they do want water usage reduced. On the other hand the cynic in me is wondering if it isn't actually a plan to reduce the amount of sewage needing treatment. We have had more than one yea with drought restrictions on water usage where I live, No car washing at home, lawn watering restrictions and so on.

    Thanks for the information onthe Volcanic eruption. That was the one I was thinking about

    As for energy needs maybe we need the government or private industry to invest in methods to make Geothermal power gereation practical anywhere not just where it is close to the surface.

    I have come to the conclusion that Alcohol in the fuel for the car is a Zero gain that makes me spend more money at the pump to buy molre gallons of fuel that takes me a shorter distance per gallon.
    Drawbacks include a raise in food costs. Myself spending more for fuel. More fuel drliveries to the stations. Possible damage to the fuel systems in older cars (Specualtion) as alcohol will pick any accumulated water in the tank. Think Gas line Antifreeze.

    Pros include more revenue for the gas companies, More tax revenue for the state as more fuel will be sold due to the lower mileage per gallon. :confused:
     
  8. machavez00

    machavez00 Hall Of Fame

    3,738
    8
    Nov 2, 2006
    Phoenix,...
    here's some info from some folks that going to lose their jobs
    http://www.cyberium.co.uk/downloads/Journal of Geoclimatic Studies.pdf
    at the end of the paper
     
  9. FogCutter

    FogCutter Godfather

    382
    0
    Nov 6, 2006

    The whale harvest peaked about 1960 when 65,000 animals were taken. Since then the count has fallen to under two thousand, and CO2 levels have risen dramatically. I think the ban didn't take hold until 1986 or so, but the UK, the US, and several other larger whaling countries stopped the practice well before that.

    The trends are compelling. There has to be a relationship, and this one we can test. We need to kill at least 65,000 whales a year for the next 5 years and track CO2 levels.

    And there's no time to talk about it, we may be too late already.

    Save the Earth, Kill a Whale!
     
  10. txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
    There also seems to be a rapid increase in CO2 since the introduction of satellite TV. All those dishes facing the southern sky must be doing something to distort the composition of the atmosphere. Let's ban all satellite dishes for the same 5 year period to see how that effects the CO2 level.

    Or we could take action on those items that science has shown can actually cause an increase in CO2 levels; fossil fuel consumption for example.

    Another article:
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071213/lf_nm_life/arctic_ice_life_dc_1
     
  11. veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,683
    348
    Dec 9, 2006
    Out west here "the water issue" is simply not enough. Low flow showers, toilets, etc. are a means to allow more households to use the finite amount of water available.
    I can confirm your "speculation" about older cars being damaged when using even 10% alcohol mix. Plastics used in fuels systems do get damaged if they weren't designed to be used with alcohol. Just two tanks of a 10% mix caused problems with my "new car" back in '85.
    E-85 fuel is 85% alcohol, so water collecting can be greater than with gasoline. At 85% there is significantly less energy in each gallon [than gasoline], it takes more energy to make from corn and so cost as much or more than the gasoline it is to replace.
    The only "gain" I see is for the corn farmers as there is more competition in the market for their product.
     
  12. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    From the article you quoted... a possible solution to power plant emissions...

    "New research shows that carbon dioxide, one gas that traps heat in the atmosphere, can be captured as it leaves coal-burning power plants and then permanently sequestered in rock formations thousands of feet below the Earth's surface."

    Oh yeah, this sounds like a great idea! Let's pump CO2 into pockets underneath the earth "permanently"... Nothing bad could come of that.

    This is a good example of the knee-jerk reactions I'm talking about. Even IF we have global warming that is caused by man's technology... we are talking about using more technology to move the problem around and perhaps create a completely different problem.

    Perhaps in 25 years or so after implementing this particular plan, we might be wondering why dormant volcanoes seem more active and we are having more earthquakes after we have pressurized the earth with our CO2.

    But we must act now... no time to waste... hurry and do something that might be worse than what the "experts" claim we are doing... even if we may not be doing anything.

    Some of the "solutions" are worse than the "problem" we may or may not have.

    Wouldn't people feel stupid if they found out this was a normal cyclic change every couple of thousand of years... but we "reacted" to it and created a real man-made problem trying to combat nature.
     
  13. veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,683
    348
    Dec 9, 2006
    While I have no idea what saprotrophic eubacteria is, thank you for your post.
    While most of the "math" is over my head, they are not saying global warming isn't happening. They "propose" the reason for the CO2 rise is something more than burning fossil fuels.
    All "charts or graphs" can [or will be] "normalized" to display an idea or position.
    Given that both the show "meltdown" and this paper, have measured temp increases from 1860 and the increase in CO2, I would expect the graphs to correlate. If not in the vertical scale, at least in the shape of the line on the graph.
    The "meltdown" shows a much steeper slope, which could just be the vertical scale [that isn't clear in the show]. Assuming this paper's graph has a different scale, I don't see the same variation in Green house gases and temps that is shown in the show and here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3569604.stm
    There seems to be some debate over this curve:
    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/03/03/hockey-stick-1998-2005-rip/
    and http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11
    But even in these the curve from 1860 to now doesn't agree with those in: http://www.cyberium.co.uk/downloads/Journal of Geoclimatic Studies.pdf
     
  14. veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,683
    348
    Dec 9, 2006
    While I may not agree with you on some [many?] things, this is definitely one that we do.
    Now I find "the shoe on the other foot". Do you really think in 25 years [or more] that man could cause enough pressure deep enough to have any effect in the earth's crust?
    Being "in the middle", I'm staying away from both extreme positions, and trying to find the merit in each side.
     
  15. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC

    Honestly, I'm not sure... but it just sounds like a problem waiting to happen if implemented. Also, it is not unlike the garbage dumps where we bury problems only to find out stuff seeps into groundwater eventually and causes some nastiness. IF fossil-fuel burning is really and truly going to kill us off with global climate changes that cause disasters... it seems to me that burying the emissions would only delay the problem, plus what happens if suddenly those pockets burst and all that CO2 is released at one swoop. IF it is bad in small doses, it would be worse in quantity. This is just further evidence to me that even the folks who seem to believe in the same global warming problem have conflicting ways of "solving" the problem.

    While it may seem like I waffle sometimes, I try not to :) I'll never go so far as to say we cannot or do not have an effect on our environment, because we most certainly do... simply by existing we interact and affect things.

    What I'm nervous about are folks that draw conclusions that may become regrettable ones in the future... and perhaps being pressured to take actions now that might be mistakes in the future.

    Since we have a doctor in the house... I also was just remembering how there was a time when the modus operandi was to take out tonsils "just because" and also some folks were having appendectomies even when nothing was wrong with their appendix. On the cancer front, there have also been documented cases (saw a special on PBS once not long ago) where people had surgery to remove what turned out to be benign tumors only to have it result in a spread of more malignant ones.

    Sometimes even folks with good intentions (remember how the road to hell was paved after all) can cause harm by jumping to conclusions.
     
  16. txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
    Wouldn't we feel even more stupid if we had a chance to do something and instead ignored the situation, as many here are proposing. Sure some suggestions will be off the wall and unworkable, but that doesn't mean that everyones idea shouldn't at least be given some consideration.

    Is putting CO2 under the earth (not at high pressure) any worse than creating vast caverns by pumping all the oil and natural gas out? How about replacing one with the other?

    For those who deny that man is capable of contributing to global warming, then the opposite should also be considered true. If we can't hurt the situation in either way, then what is the harm. If it is true that we are contributing to global warming then it should also be true that we can do something to reverse the damage done. The sooner we do this the better. Not knee-jerk responses but well thought out ideas, some of which may start out as off-the-wall ideas with just a glimmer of a good idea.
     
  17. veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,683
    348
    Dec 9, 2006
    We both seem to be old enough to remember how "man can be wrong".
     
  18. txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
  19. rlgold88

    rlgold88 Godfather

    328
    0
    Aug 30, 2006
    Take a look at this site http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/11/21/arctic-sea-ice-returns-fast/
    Doe this mean global cooling; no but it points to cycles
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page