The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on May 20, 2007 23:50:49 GMT -5
All I know is that the 2 Bratwursts that I had for dinner tonight aren't currently helping the greenhouse gas situation. In that case, Wisconsin is probably responsible for about half of the greenhouse gases out there! As for easyed's energy comments, I agree with some of that. Incentives for alternative energy autos would certainly be helpful (Obama proposed having the government take care of the US automakers' healthcare/pension obligations to their workers if the companies put the savings towards alternative energies). Hybrids are good (but could be better), but ethanol isn't all its cracked up to be (high energy costs in production). Some new breakthroughs in hydrogen power make me think that's the way to go. Read www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN1739378820070518?src=cms for more info on that. I don't think increased domestic oil production is the answer in the short term or the long term. That just takes the wind out of the sails for any push away from oil (people are too shortsighted to switch unless gas prices are high), so you're only delaying our problem instead of solving it (since we'll run out of oil before the Saudis do). We have the technology today to make big cuts in our oil use. Nuclear power is available today, more efficient vehicles are available today, ethanol (despite all its faults) is available today, and hydrogen looks to be on the cusp of being available. The biggest hurdles aren't technological, they're political. The energy policymakers are dragging their feet on hydrogen (see the above article), and ignorant NIMBYs are preventing new nuclear plants.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on May 21, 2007 10:35:15 GMT -5
All I know is that the 2 Bratwursts that I had for dinner tonight aren't currently helping the greenhouse gas situation. In that case, Wisconsin is probably responsible for about half of the greenhouse gases out there! Aren't cows the biggest producers of CO2 gas in the world?
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on May 21, 2007 11:31:38 GMT -5
Well, just exhaling makes humans CO2 producers.
Just producing CO2 isn't a bad thing on its own. Normally there's a healthy balance in the environment - CO2 coming from animals gets absorbed by plants, which give off oxygen. The current problem is that there's more CO2 than normal (I really can't see any cause other than human activity) and fewer trees than normal (human activity is definetly at fault for that). That's the logic behind carbon offsetting - you compensate for the increased output of CO2 by increasing the number of trees.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on May 21, 2007 11:40:32 GMT -5
Well, just exhaling makes humans CO2 producers. Just producing CO2 isn't a bad thing on its own. Normally there's a healthy balance in the environment - CO2 coming from animals gets absorbed by plants, which give off oxygen. The current problem is that there's more CO2 than normal (I really can't see any cause other than human activity) and fewer trees than normal (human activity is definetly at fault for that). That's the logic behind carbon offsetting - you compensate for the increased output of CO2 by increasing the number of trees. Really? Never would have known that. I was actually being serious about cows--I was wrong though--they don't produce a lot of co2, they produce methane, which is actually worse: www.eco-pros.com/methanemenace.htmwww.msnbc.msn.com/id/8740115/
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 21, 2007 11:57:59 GMT -5
Well, just exhaling makes humans CO2 producers. Just producing CO2 isn't a bad thing on its own. Normally there's a healthy balance in the environment - CO2 coming from animals gets absorbed by plants, which give off oxygen. The current problem is that there's more CO2 than normal (I really can't see any cause other than human activity) and fewer trees than normal (human activity is definetly at fault for that). That's the logic behind carbon offsetting - you compensate for the increased output of CO2 by increasing the number of trees. Really? Never would have known that. I was actually being serious about cows--I was wrong though--they don't produce a lot of co2, they produce methane, which is actually worse: www.eco-pros.com/methanemenace.htmwww.msnbc.msn.com/id/8740115/They also produce steak, hamburgers, cheese, jackets, belts and Jessica Alba's outfit in 'Sin City,' which is all very, very good. ;D
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 21, 2007 12:22:16 GMT -5
I have read but don't remember the source that we have more acreage of trees in the country today than existed at the time of the revolution. Does anyone know if this is true?
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on May 21, 2007 13:08:02 GMT -5
Maybe on the eastern seaboard but no way in the entire country...or maybe because at the time the country was only 13 states while now it is 50? But who knows
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on May 21, 2007 13:08:33 GMT -5
Read about this last month. As Coast2Coast and others have mentioned, the earth is warming, and we need to be aware of that whether we agree on the cause or not. My personal opinion (mostly based on high school science classes, so take it for what it is) is that human-produced gases and wastes have something to do with it. However, as this study may show, our total understanding of how climate works is incomplete at best. www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RJJRNTGExcerpt for non-subscribers: "This chattering-class environmental picture is not necessarily wrong, but it does include many assumptions. One of them, that planting trees will make the world cooler than it would otherwise be, is the subject of a newly published study by Govindasamy Bala, of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, in California, and his colleagues. Dr Bala has found, rather counter-intuitively, that removing all of the world's trees might actually cool the planet down. Conversely, adding trees everywhere might warm it up. Clearcut cooling The reason for this is that trees affect the world's temperature by means other than the carbon they sequester. For instance forests, being generally green and bristly things, remain quite a dark shade even after a blizzard. They are certainly darker than grasslands smothered in snow, and thus they can absorb more of the sun's heat than vegetation which might otherwise cover the same stretch of land. That warms things up. Transpiration—the process by which plants suck up groundwater and evaporate it into the atmosphere—is another and opposite matter. Woodlands are usually better than other ecosystems at getting water vapour into the air. In warm places this tends to make things cloudier, and those clouds, in turn, reflect the sun's heat back into space. That cools things down. Dr Bala and his colleagues took such effects into account using a computer model called the Integrated Climate and Carbon Model. Unlike most climate-change models, which calculate how the Earth should absorb and radiate heat in response to a list of greenhouse-gas concentrations, this one has many subsections that represent how the carbon cycle (photosynthesis and its consequences) works, and how it influences the climate. Thus, Dr Bala's model can be told to replace all the world's forests with shrubby grasslands, and left alone to work out how such a change would alter greenhouse-gas concentrations and how that, in turn, would influence the temperature in different places. When Dr Bala ordered global clearcutting, the model calculated that the atmosphere's carbon-dioxide levels would roughly double by 2100. This is a much greater increase than happens in a business-as-usual simulation, but it would, paradoxically, make for a colder planet. That is because brighter high latitudes would reflect more sunlight in winter, cooling the local environment by as much as 6°C. The tropics would warm up, since they would be less cloudy, but not by enough to produce a net global heat gain. Overall, Dr Bala's model suggests that complete deforestation would cause an additional 1.3°C temperature rise compared with business as usual, because of the higher carbon-dioxide levels that would result. However, the additional reflectivity of the planet would cause 1.6°C of cooling. A treeless world would thus, as he reports in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, be 0.3°C cooler than otherwise." Also wanted to say that ed made a good post on page 1 re: energy policy. Two small objections I have, however, are: 1) Only one oil and gas company (I think it's Conoco) includes increased exploration in its current plans. If we are going to increase domestic exploration, it might have to be heavily subsidized, and I don't think that's a good solution. Increasing the number of refineries might be easier if Americans are okay with relaxing environmental protections. 2) Although you're right that wind energy is currently not part of a nationwide energy solution, don't rule out its importance. Here in Texas we have vastly increased the number of wind farms over the past decade, and the state's General Land Office just signed a lease to create the nation's largest offshore wind farm off of Padre Island. The state government, city governments, and private business are behind wind power in Texas. In a few decades wind power may become part of the solution to energy independence in certain regions of the US. Besides those objections, I generally agree that other viable solutions (such as nuclear energy) are currently available, and that politicians keep screwing up America's energy priorities (remember the pork-laden 2003 energy bill?).
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on May 21, 2007 16:57:46 GMT -5
At what price point does petroleum become so untenable as an energy source that alternative energy investment/incentives become more than an election year plank that is a non-starter in Congress? It certainly isn't $3.18 - and that represents more than a $2.00 increase in the price in the last 10 years.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on May 21, 2007 18:14:34 GMT -5
Many very good posts by all; great discussion.
As Austin pointed out, part of the problem is that we really don't know how the climate works across ecosystems, time, and with various stimuli--we know a lot about micro climate, primary processes, and lots of other things, though, which give us a better idea than at any time in human history about the global eco-environment and humanity's effect on it.
There have been various warming and cooling episodes throughout human history. One of the most notable recently was the Little Ice Age (circa 1300-1850 depending on who you're talking to), which occurred after a period of warmth in the middle ages (circa 800-1300, again depending on the source). Experts don't know for sure if the temperature phenomena were global; they do know they occured roughly simultaneously in Europe and N. America, and evidence suggests parts of the Southern Hemisphere were affected.
ed pointed out the stories from the 70's about a global cooling trend, which at the were time correct. Looking back, they reflected a more proximal temporal focus than climate change models do now. There was a documented cooling episode circa 1940-1970, just as there were temperature minima at around 1650, 1770, and 1850, with warming periods between them, and truly incredible warming since about 1850, corresponding with the Industrial Revolution. One key to keep in mind is that we're talking about change--in weather patterns, polar icepack, ocean temp, etc.--not just atmospheric warming or cooling.
As an aside, I love thinking about the connection between human activity and the environment -- think about the major revolutionary events in Euro-N. American history that happened around those temperature minima. I'm not trying to say there's a causal relationship, but the correlation sure is interesting to consider. But the point is that ed is right: the temperature of the earth rises and drops. Unfortunately, the fact that it goes up and down misses the entire crux of the CO2 debate, which is that for the first time in human history, humanity is seriously a factor in global climate change. We've been a factor in micro-climate change since the Agricultural Revoluation: good examples are the fall of the Maya and why Mediterranean houses with a central open-air space and a fountain are about 5-10 degrees F cool than ones that don't.
We also know from periodic El Nino episodes that a "warming" trend in one part of the world (the equatorial eastern Pacific Ocean, for example) creates far different effects in other parts of the world (which moves the Jet Stream, causing weather patterns to change).
The fact is, we don't yet know exactly what effect deforestation, increased greenhouse gasses, and other pressures humanity puts in the environment will have on warming and cooling trends, what the sun is going to do, whether we'll get hit by an asteroid, or whether the Second Coming will make it all a moot point. As our technology increases in accuracy, so does our ability to see further into the past and model farther into the future and create scenarios. What's emerging is a picture of a planet that will increase in unstable and extreme weather for a pretty long time.
There are also a lot of dire predictions of change.
I think the key thing is that human societies and governments need to be aware of the changes, plan for them, be able to adjust to them, be able to harness positive consequences, and be able to mitigate negative ones. We used to think our activities would "kill" earth. Well, if you're a student of geological history, you'd know that earth bounces back--even if it takes a really long time--but species don't. We're not planning for earth's survival, we're planning for ours. We know that when we treat the earth badly on a local scale, it treats us badly. We're starting to see the cumulative effects of that on a global scale, and the old mindset about the earth as an unchanging, ultimately resilient body under the mechanistic views that grew out of the Baconian-Descartian bodies of philosophy and science (thanks a lot Francis and Rene) doesn't reflect the reality of what certain pressures cause earth to do.
One of the inevitable results of climate change will be shifting landforms, growing seasons, species ranges, the availability of fresh water, etc., which will impacts economies, political structures, and cultures. Obviously, having more humans around compounds these pressures, so as the population grows and more and more people "come up" to Western economic standards, we'll see things happen faster and faster---unless of course we change our ways or someone or something changes them for us.
So, while it may not be certain that the planet will inevitably cool or inevitably warm within a couple generations of humanity (it will do so eventually, as it has for millions of years, or it might do it tomorrow like in, ironically, the Day After Tomorrow), its climate will go through changes not seen for hundreds or thousands of years and that will mean we either adapt or perish. Evidence shows humanity is a major cause. In the alternative, even if nature is in the driver's seat with her foot on the pedal and humans are riding shotgun, we are pushing her leg down and making the whole thing go faster. We have a solemn duty to do what we can to address it, just like we do in families that show signs of drug abuse, in economies with unhealthy anti-competitive practices, on softball teams that put the crappiest player at shortstop (never a good idea). Change isn't coming--it's happening. The time to act is now.
As for what to do, well that's another post, which I'll get to after my band rocks Chief Ike's tonight. You coming St. Pete?
[On edit: neither does my incorrigble affection for Mexican food and hot sauce, bubbrubb.]
|
|
bubbrubbhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
We are the intuitive minds that plot the course. Woo-WOOO!
Posts: 1,369
|
Post by bubbrubbhoya on May 21, 2007 23:25:56 GMT -5
Anyone else notice the banner ad up on this thread? Pretty hilarious, given the direction of the discussion. It directs the inquisitive minded to this website: www.carboncreditkillers.com/Hilarious.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 22, 2007 7:40:35 GMT -5
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,604
|
Post by hoyatables on May 22, 2007 9:21:23 GMT -5
An interesting aside: Former staff members of the National Museum of Natural History are reporting that they modified the text of the upcoming climate change exhibit to state that global warming may or may not be caused by human interaction, because of fear of reprisal from the current administration. www.wtop.com/?nid=220&sid=1146554Word is that EasyEd and TheAttorneyGeneral paid the museum staff a visit in the middle of the night to persuade them of the truth . . . .
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 22, 2007 12:40:38 GMT -5
EasyEd's contention is that anyone who dares to disagree with those who believe global warming is caused by human activity will be shot at dawn for having the gall to object to what the "believers" have decared is a "consensus".
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on May 22, 2007 15:26:22 GMT -5
EasyEd's contention is that anyone who dares to disagree with those who believe global warming is caused by human activity will be shot at dawn for having the gall to object to what the "believers" have decared is a "consensus". I, for one, agree with your larger point. Only good can come out of seriously challenging the status quo. I'm pretty psyched a live in a round world that revolves around the sun. The thing is, though, that in order to change the status quo, concrete & indesputable evidence is required. In the face of a boat load of actual data & empirical evidence, giving a list of people who are disbelievers just doesn't sway me. What I take particular issue with in the climate change debate, is using the rejection of the consenus opinion to stall action at the expense of us all. Say we take action and solve our addiction to non-clean energy sources, but global warming ends up being a big hoax. What then? We've spent a lot of money to fix a problem that didn't exist, but we've solved a separate problem--albeit probably not in the most economical way. But what if the climate really is changing because of us? The cost of inaction would be enormous. Put together a cogent, complete, and data-driven argument and I will be glad to stop worrying about things like why Minneapolis didn't have a white Christmas this year.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on May 22, 2007 16:55:43 GMT -5
Debate about and research into the impact of human activity on the climate should increase. We don't know enough about it know, which means that we should attempt to find out more in order to come to a more definitive conclusion. I think that people who point out flaws in global warming theory with the intent of encouraging further research into the topic are doing us a valuable service. If we think we know everything we don't seek to know more, and that's dangerous.
What bothers me is the people who say things to the tune of "global warming is fantasy, so we shouldn't even think about it". In my mind, that's even more dangerous. There are a lot of people out there who, for various reasons, want to stifle debate about global warming and make people stop thinking about it.
Here's an analogy: A bunch of people are building an airplane (in our analogy, the airplane is the climate). Somebody comes in and says that on the plane's third flight, the wing will fall off. One person says "Oh by god, we have to rip the entire plane apart and spend millions of dollars designing and building a new wing!" Another person says "No, everything's fine, let's ignore the potential problem." A third person says "Let's take a closer look at the potential problem, then decide what to do."
The third person is obviously offering the most sound advice. We still don't know enough about climate change to ensure that our reactions to it are productive. At the same time, our lack of knowledge doesn't mean that we should ignore the problem.
(As an aside, my airplane analogy actually happened to the 747 - after the start of construction, new data showed that the ends of the wings would break off in flight. Just as Boeing was about to scrap the prototype, design an entirely new wing, and start over again, an engineer found that a small modification to a part that hadn't yet been built would solve the problem. Not sure if that part of the analogy will hold true for climate change, but it shows the merits of investigating the problem instead of using knee-jerk reactions.)
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,668
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on May 23, 2007 18:20:55 GMT -5
Since I am both a scientist (research chemist) and work for the EPA, I guess I better jump in to this discussion. But first the disclaimer: my views are my own and not those of the EPA. Since the Supreme Court decision that the EPA has to consider carbon dioxide a pollution, the EPA is finally concerned about this problem (I won't make any comments on why it took a court order for the EPA to get involved - they have lots of programs on climate change, etc., but it was not to the point of regulation of carbon dioxide emissions).
There is a principle, which guides some scientists' thinking: the Precautionary Principle. Roughly it states, that if there are two or more situations, it is prudent to go with the fix that causes the least amount of harm. Couple this with some modeling work (not so good as experimental, but getting better all the time, and in this situation, might show more than "conflicting" experimental data) that shows that within X number of years (where X is probably less than 20), the carbon dioxide levels will reach such a concentration in the atmosphere that no amount of constraints will reverse this situation and global warming because of the greenhouse effect will be a problem we have to live with. So conservation, alternative energy sources, etc. make a whole lot of sense to develop and limit our dependence of fossil fuels. Of course, I am waiting for nuclear fusion (still about 25 years down the road and an engineering possibility, so probably not in my lifetime).
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on May 24, 2007 16:10:47 GMT -5
Thank you for sharing your learned views, Nevada, and good points Stig and EB. Nevada, my younger bro and I have been pining for nuclear fusion since we were kids. Maybe sometime this generation we'll make it happen (although he has a much better chance than I do ... he doesn't spend all his free time on hoyatalk )
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,668
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on May 25, 2007 15:14:55 GMT -5
Thank you for sharing your learned views, Nevada, and good points Stig and EB. Nevada, my younger bro and I have been pining for nuclear fusion since we were kids. Maybe sometime this generation we'll make it happen (although he has a much better chance than I do ... he doesn't spend all his free time on hoyatalk ) LOL! Let's hope it happens soon.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 25, 2007 19:21:57 GMT -5
|
|