1. Welcome Hearth.com Guests and Visitors - Please enjoy our forums!
    Hearth.com GOLD Sponsors who help bring the site content to you:
    Hearthstone Soapstone and Cast-Iron stoves( Wood, Gas or Pellet Stoves and Inserts)
    Caluwe - Passion for Fire and Water ( Pellet and Wood Hydronic and Space Heating)

A New Analysis That Will Not Make BeGreen Happy

Post in 'The Green Room' started by BrotherBart, Jul 16, 2006.

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

    webbie Seasoned Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Messages:
    12,266
    Loc:
    Western Mass.
    My comment was trivia as far as the head of Ford Motor Company, who BTW also claims he is an environmentalist - but is having a tough time with entrenched forces there.

    On the Al Gore end, the book and movie both claim one of the main things we can do to reduce greenhouse gases is being veggie. Basically, it means a lot more MPG out of any food and the fuel used to produce it.

    So eating meat is inefficient, unless you are hunting or raising your own grass-fed couple of head.

    Helpful Sponsor Ads!





  2. webbie

    webbie Seasoned Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Messages:
    12,266
    Loc:
    Western Mass.
    The US accounts for 36% of worldwide Greenhouse Gases.
    With about 6% of the worlds population.
    When Kyoto was agreed, the US signed and committed to reducing its emissions by 6%. But since then it has pulled out of the agreement and its carbon dioxide emissions have increased to more than 15% above 1990 levels.


    Chinese citizens each use about 10% the energy as their american counterparts.
    With about 20% of the world population, they produce 16% of the Greenhouse gases.
    China has signed the Kyoto Treaty and has the goal of getting 10% of energy from renewables by 2010 and more after that.
  3. MountainStoveGuy

    MountainStoveGuy New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Messages:
    3,629
    Loc:
    Northern Colorado Mountains
    I think the comment was directed to enevitable fact that global warming is going to occur and is irreversable at this point in time, i dont think it was pointed at the chinese for being wastfull. We all know us americans are the biggest gluttons on the face of the earth.
  4. suematteva

    suematteva New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    605
    Loc:
    Rutland, VT//Southern Quebec

    Amen
  5. elkimmeg

    elkimmeg Guest

    some Al gore observations where was all this wisdom during his campaign? Remember he lost to an idiot but had simmilar grades in college as Bush. I can't remember his distinguished military record? IT seems he takes a lot of credit for being enviormently correct after the fact? I always though NASA was responsible for the internet. What browser did he invent? I would agree Anderson was more instrumemtal than Gore.

    I did not know if I ate only veggies I would have more energy. and be more energy effecient. I can tell you my wife has cut down on my red meat consumption and more fish. she keeps trying to get me to excersize more. The only excersize I get biking with her is in the neck to see if she can keep up And I have a crap bike I found someone was throwing it away. For some reason she discounts all the excersize I get doing my normal work. and naturally golf is no excersize. processing 12+ cords of wood a year doesn't count.
    Being stilll able to bench press my own weight multi reps doesn"t count.. She is always scheduling physical exams. Went and did a stress test on a treadmill 15 minutes later I asked the tech what was the point. I maxed out the machine.
    I'm with BB I can enjoy a jucie burger or steak but not as often Smartness is learning to do thinge in moderation.
    I hope members do not think less of me because I drink an occasional beer or two and have a hot dog
  6. saichele

    saichele Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    507
    That's not the real number. They only mine about 2 Billion tons. But it's rising by 10% annually.

    Steve
  7. saichele

    saichele Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    507
    I think the point is that in 9 yrs from your base year, they pass us in CO2 production. And combined carbon emissions increase by 65% (ignoring the rest of the world.)

    If we were reversed our trend and reduced our emissions by 1%/yr, in 9 yrs the US and China still emit 149% of their base yr emissions.

    So, as MSG pointed out, unless we can get a cap on China's emissions we're hosed anyway. ours could go down some, but not nearly as fast as theirs are going up.

    Steve
  8. webbie

    webbie Seasoned Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Messages:
    12,266
    Loc:
    Western Mass.
    Wait! So CO2 emmissions are measured per country or continent.....not per person?

    We need to get them to cap something that we refuse to cap?

    Obviously, they are coming out of mass poverty and will increase their output. But until they get to 50% of what we put out (per person), I think they have the moral high ground (or until 95% even).

    The point is not that they have to take action - actually they are doing so in many ways. The point is that we are here in the US pontificating while polluting vastly more! There is something wrong with this picture!
  9. saichele

    saichele Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    507
    Guess it depends on how you want to count.

    Per capita, US CO2 emissions peaked in 1973. And are now basically flat. And are currently decreasing relative to GDP.

    Per capita, China's CO2 emissions are growing at about 5% per year. Still much smaller than US, but catching up. But also dropping realtive to GDP.

    Both from the UN - http://www.iaea.org/inis/aws/eedrb/data/CN-enemgdp.html

    But it's the last sentence from my last post -
    "So, as MSG pointed out, unless we can get a cap on China’s emissions we’re hosed anyway. ours could go down some, but not nearly as fast as theirs are going up. " Any reduction we make will be more than offset by their increase.

    It doesn't necessarily matter where it comes from, but rather how much there is. There's going to be a lot. And there's really no way we're going to reduce global emissions to the necessary levels, Kyoto or not.

    That is - the argument Gore and others put forward is that because we are emitting excess carbon, as a result of burning fossil fuels and clearing forests, we are adding carbon to the atmosphere faster than it can be reabsorbed. They look at the historic record, say from Mauna Loa, and determine that we've been doing it for 150 yrs.

    So to keep atmospheric CO2 levels constant, we'd have to drop emissions to early 19th century levels world wide. We can alter how fast the concentrations are increasing, but not the basic fact that they are increasing. There's a lot of hand wringing and jockeying for position, but we're on a train going somewhere, and we can change the speed, but we can't stop it or back it up. So while there are many good reasons to reduce our demand for foreign oil (and many of those solutions also help on CO2), on gloabl warming we can worry about it or we can enjoy the ride. The outcome will be the same.

    How's that for a picker upper early inthe day?

    Steve
  10. WarmGuy

    WarmGuy Feeling the Heat

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Messages:
    492
    Loc:
    Far Northern Calif. Coast
    Note that burning wood does not contribute to global warming in the same way that burning oil does. The combustion of the wood releases the same amount of carbon dioxide as was bound up by the growing tree. Also the wood, if not burned, would still oxidize as it decomposed on the ground (slow oxidation instead of fast). The oil, however, if left underground, is not going to add CO2 to the atmosphere.

    Concerning high MPG cars, realize that depending on your driving, you don't have to spend a lot for a high-mileage hybrid. Our Toyota echo gets 43 MPG and only cost us $13,000.

    We get good mileage because much of our driving is on the highway, and we drive 55 MPH (we get 39 MPG if we drive 67 MPH). This is good because gas is about $3.40/gal around here.
  11. webbie

    webbie Seasoned Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Messages:
    12,266
    Loc:
    Western Mass.
    I think per population is the most fair way, because using GNP means that a nation looks better because they are more industrial (and waste more, since GNP is a measure of output- including arms which you blow up, etc.).

    So, based on the total per capita output of CO2, including that which is done in our name (China and Mexican plants making goods for the USA is really OUR output, this existed to a very small level in the past, but big now)....do you say we are level or down? I'll do some research, but it is hard to imagine.

    (as I suspected, research shows a leveling off, but does not take into account the vast amount produced by China, etc. for our goods. This is not a valid number then.....because of the vast trade imbalance...in other words, we are getting vastly more CO2 from them in goods than we are selling them in Software, etc.)

    So, your post seems to say it is black or while - a check box or none. Do you mean to say that this entire situation is NOT a matter of degree?

    The way I see, it doesn't matter at all what China or India does....mostly because we can have little effect on that.

    BUT, we can change our behavior. We can elect a President and INSIST that he tell us what he intends to do (Kyoto for a start, much more later)....

    Now, as far as those other countries, since we are the most capable country in the world in terms of R&D and capital, we should develop the technologied for reducing CO2 and pollutants and then sell the machines to the rest of the world.

    If this was (and it is) as important as arming us to the teeth, then we could easily do it. Our state could have almost 50% or more of its electricity just from wind farms, hydro and a few biomass plants....let alone tidal and wave generators.

    These efforts are actuallyu easy once the political will is there. That is what leadership is.
  12. jjbaer

    jjbaer New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    781
    Loc:
    OH
    Steve,

    Don't know if you're old enough to remember but in about 1973, the same scientific community who are now saying "global warming" were at that time crying out the dangers of the coming "global ice age".......it was all the rage in the liberal press.....so......as an engineer and scientist myself, while I do think we should be doing all we can to do things in the most efficient ways we can (which in turn DOES reduce greenhouse gases significantly) I also don't believe everything I see or hear........

    Also, I'd like to see a NET assessment of what happens if we increase our temperatures a little.....hey, who knows, we might be able to raise corn for ethanol YEAR ROUND in N. and S. Dakota!!
  13. begreen

    begreen Mooderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    46,532
    Loc:
    South Puget Sound, WA
    Corn is not ideal for ethanol production. Sugar cane or sugar beets have much higher sugar content and are better alternatives. Given the risk of hurricanes in LA perhaps farming sugar cane there is a viable recovery plan.

    PS: I's sure you are familiar with many of the scientic communtity assessments of the effect of global warming in the US and world already. Many crop yields may be lower due to higher nighttime temps and of course, less water, but in case not:

    http://www.pewclimate.org/arctic_qa.cfm#7
    http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8282(199909)89:4<1049:TIOGWO>2.0.CO;2-H
    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/27/9971
    http://www.unep.org/geo/yearbook/yb2006/063.asp
  14. jjbaer

    jjbaer New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    781
    Loc:
    OH
    Elk,

    You're being intellectually dishonest here with the other forum members who take your word as "gospel"......Here's the truth about Gores academic record (you can find it here:

    http://www.larryelder.com/Gore/goredubiousrecord.htm

    and at several other places). From the article:

    1) Gore's undergraduate transcript from Harvard is riddled with C's, including a C-minus in introductory economics, a D in one science course, and a C-plus in another.

    2) "In his sophomore year at Harvard," the Post reported, "Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale." Moreover, Gore's graduate school record - consistently glossed over by the press - is nothing short of shameful. In 1971, Gore enrolled in Vanderbilt Divinity School where, according to Bill Turque, author of "Inventing Al Gore," he received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters. Not surprisingly, Gore did not receive a degree from the divinity school. Nor did Gore graduate from Vanderbilt Law School, where he enrolled for a brief time and received his fair share of C's. (Bush went on to earn an MBA from Harvard).

    Now I ask you Elk, what say you to these facts?
  15. jjbaer

    jjbaer New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    781
    Loc:
    OH
    Begreen,

    please address the main fact: that the same scientific group that is NOW saying "global warming" was THEN saying "Global Cooling"..........you seem to choose to believe whatever they feed you......


    Also, the comment of "corn in ND" was an example meant to show that just because one variable turns negative (increased temperatures) this one change can have both negative and positive consequences..........all I'm saying is that I want to see the NET effect. Sound reasonable?

    Also, please respond to the credibility issue concerning atmospheric scientists who first called for another ice age and are now saying "global warming".....
  16. begreen

    begreen Mooderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    46,532
    Loc:
    South Puget Sound, WA
    This is not an us/them discussion. Surely as a scientist you have made an erroneous hypothesis once in your life? Isn't that what science is all about? But now, after 25 years of concentrated testing, models and real results (aka glacial melt, arctic permafrost melt, greenland icecap melt), the period of hypothesis is over, global warming is here. The only question now is whether we will reach the point of dramatic shutdown of balanced systems in which case the growing of corn in ND is academic and moot.
  17. jjbaer

    jjbaer New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    781
    Loc:
    OH
    BeGreen,

    There are many notable scientists who say otherwise about global warming:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

    amongst these are:

    Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences:

    and

    William M. Gray, Colorado State University:

    this last one, Dr. Gray...he was the one who predicts the hurricanes each year.....you gonna tell me he and the MIT prof are "crack pots"...?

    how about some more from that web site:

    Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics:

    or

    Tim Patterson [15], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada:


    so...not saying it ISN'T happening, all I'm saying is that the same group who was saying the "sky is falling" in the 1970's with "global ice age" are now saying the "sky is falling" with "global warming" yet there are MANY CREDIBLE SCIENTISTS who say otherwise...that's all I'm saying.

    At least I'm willing to look at BOTH sides but you listen to only one side......

    AND, as far as some "crop yields decreasing because of higher night time temps", there are also NEW agricultural areas created because the higher temperatures will allow crops to be planted where they never could before.....but again, you look at only those areas that support your theory....all I'm saying is look at it in totality (i.e., the NET result).
  18. jjbaer

    jjbaer New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    781
    Loc:
    OH


    OK, Elk...I'm waiting.........which student is the idiot now...still think it's Bush?? think again!!!
  19. begreen

    begreen Mooderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    46,532
    Loc:
    South Puget Sound, WA
    The group of scientists from the 70's are largely retired or dead. I do not know you. These are not "my" theories. You do not "know" me. Though you do resemble someone I "Frank"ly do know a little about.
  20. Sandor

    Sandor Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Messages:
    917
    Loc:
    Deltaville,VA
    Oddly enough, Global Warming may plunge Europe into a mini Ice Age. This may happen because the Isothermtic belt of warm Atlantic Ocean waters that travel from from the South, around the equator to the North around England. This Belt is referred to as the Gulf Stream, that produced many Tuna on my fishing tips out of Cape Hatteras. (The same Tuna loaded with Mercury)

    Scientist were asounted when they recently discovered that the Isothermic Belt stopped moving for 4 days last year, for the first time!

    Castiron, do you know what an Internet Troll is? I suggest you turn down the way overaggressive tone of your postings.
  21. jjbaer

    jjbaer New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    781
    Loc:
    OH


    Be green,

    Your "therapy" is almost over, "Frank" or whoever you are...LOL...at least NOW you're not continuing to delude yourself and you now ADMIT that there WAS a crackpot "global cooling" theory 30 years ago......hey, a few more steps in "castirons reality acceptance program" and you'll be released......

    You are however, still not being academically truthful when you try to discard the crackpot "global cooling" theory by saying "many of those scientists from the 70's are dead". OK..let's say they're all dead. You seem to think that being "dead" and having been replaced by a "living" group who are now saying "global warming", somehow exonerates this first group while validating this second group ......it doesn't! But hey, let's say it does, for arguments sake. Then using your reasoning, you must also acknowledge another "living" group that disagrees with "global warming" and, unlike the global warming group, has NEVER waivered on their belief that their theory may be or is wrong! That's all I'm saying.

    So, what does this all mean: even though I doubt man is the deciding factor in the slight temperature rises we've seen, I agree that pouring massive amounts of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere is NOT the right thing to do...doesn't mean I believe that CO2 is causing global warming but rather we need to come up with more environmentally friendly ways of producing power, that is, producing power while adding little to nothing to the environment that wasn't already there. This is validated by my first-hand experience as a former power plant engineer (at a coal and oil fired unit).

    In the end however, even ultra clean power production still results in adding heat to the atmosphere since all energy is eventually disapated as heat but, we can at least demand that power production be as clean as possible.

    Isn't it amazing that two people, who are diametric in their beliefs on what is causing global warming, would both be pursuing the same end-game, but for different reasons!!! Gotta love it!
  22. jjbaer

    jjbaer New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    781
    Loc:
    OH
    Sandor,

    The "way over aggressive posts" as you call them are only necessitated because of the liberal, one-sided slant to some of the posts being given here (not yours, but others) like the guy with his Bush/Gore comment where Bush is somehow an idiot compared to Gore...get real...Gore flunked out of divinity school and didn't finish law school......so then when someone like me actually takes time to research the facts, you call me an "internet troll" and "over aggressive".......get real......are you suggesting the truth doesn't matter? And what about BeGreen where he refuses to even acknowledge contrary scientific opinion on global warming....

    Bottom line: you, Sandor, "search for the guilty (those blogging unsubstantiated facts) and punish the innocent (me who exposes the truth, by calling me an "overaggressive internet troll"). Get real, get a life and be academically honest with yourself and with others. The truth WILL set you free, Sandor (even if you don't want it to)...LOL
  23. saichele

    saichele Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    507
    This smoldering ember flared awfully fast.

    My point is not that Glabal warming doesn;t exist, but that there's virtually nothing to be done about it. We are as a species goingto continue to produce CO2 in quantities as large or larger than we currently are, and we will continue enriching the atmosphere in CO2. Even if we roll back to 1990 or 198 levels, we're still enriching the atmosphere. The "natural" contributions to this process are still a little fuzzy, but humans are certainly contributing.

    Which means (assuming there is a cliff) we can change how fast the train runs off the cliff, but not the basic process of running off the cliff. If we could wave a wand and magically stop emitting CO2, we might still go off the cliff (and cause widespread social upheaval), as we don't really know what the natural processes are.

    So yes, in the meantime, I'm cautiously optimistic we can start double cropping inthe upper Midwest. And maybe have some warmer winters for a while.

    Steve
  24. jjbaer

    jjbaer New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    781
    Loc:
    OH
    Steve,

    Interesting take...that even if we drastically reduce (or stop) CO2 production, that we might still go off the cliff. Note that I said that I AM for reducing/eliminating CO2 and other gases simply because if they weren't there before, we shouldn't be adding to them now. I see it as a two step process: 1) use technology to reduce emissions from cars, power plants, etc to reduce future emissions and 2) use technology to "sequester" CO2 already in the atmosphere.

    Sequestering means using distillation to extract CO2 already in the atmosphere, liquefying or freezing it and dumping it into salt mines or elsewhere to "lock it" into a form that takes it out of the atmosphere. This could "buy us out" of any increases in atmospheric temps that MAY be due to CO2. Some drilling companies in the North Sea area are already doing this.

    Another alternative: use space-borne or ground-based mirrors to reflect some solar energy back into space to help cool the earth.

    By the way, when I hammered BeGreen to look at ALL sides of an argument, it was because there are "unintended consequences" of even environmentally friendly practices that need to be looked at and you'll only learn about these if you review ALL the data...not just that which supports one "chosen" theory.

    The example is that when aerosol dispersant's and fine (non-soot like) particals were reduced in the atmosphere, we actually increased the solar radiation on the earth and INCREASED the heating effect over what it was. Why is this? Because the aerosol particals reflect some solar radiation...decreasing these particle's increases incident solar radiation that reaches the earth and increases heating. Does this mean I'm for increasing soot and other fine particles? No way....just pointing out the "theory of unintended consequences"...which, by the way, you only see when you look at ALL the data, not just that that BeGreen wants to look at........ If for posting this, people like Sandor want to call me an "Internet Troll", then so be it........ :cheese:
  25. wg_bent

    wg_bent Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2005
    Messages:
    2,248
    Loc:
    Poughkeepsie, NY
    LOL!! well Craig, you'll just have to quit sneeking out to the garage to tap the fuel tank on the car for that friday evening night cap.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page