I look at this whole issue a lot differently. To me, when I drive my car or heat my house, I’m doing my patriotic duty of carbon recycling.
Here’s the deal:
Fossil fuels come from where? Fossils of course. From plants living millions of years ago.
And where did the carbon in these fuels come from? Why from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
So when I burn fossil fuels, I’m putting carbon dioxide BACK into the atmosphere where it came from.
Carbon recycling - it sounds kind of noble, doesn’t it?
Any other things that make you feel guilty - if you need help, give me a call.
Cute.
Iowasmiles wrote:
I look at this whole issue a lot differently. To me, when I drive my car or heat my house, I’m doing my patriotic duty of carbon recycling.
Here’s the deal:
Fossil fuels come from where? Fossils of course. From plants living millions of years ago.
And where did the carbon in these fuels come from? Why from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
So when I burn fossil fuels, I’m putting carbon dioxide BACK into the atmosphere where it came from.
Carbon recycling - it sounds kind of noble, doesn’t it?
Any other things that make you feel guilty - if you need help, give me a call.
“And where did the carbon in these fuels come from? Why from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So when I burn fossil fuels, I’m putting carbon dioxide BACK into the atmosphere where it came from.”
I disagree. The plant matter and animal matter was covered with debris and eventually compressed over millions of years. It then turned into coal or oil. Where does atmospheric carbon dioxide come into it?
The biomass was synthesized from carbon dioxide in the air. When you burn it you put it back in the air. The point is we are taking carbon sequestered over tens of millions of years and dumping it back into the air in a few centuries.
I’m pretty sure Iowasmiles was joking, guys.
Rich people who built expensive condos close to the water in Miami will suffer the consequences; insurance companies are already puting clause in their policies.
No, they have the power, so (middle income) taxpayers and premium payers will continue to foot the bill when the rich people’s expensive condos are destroyed – and are rebuilt in the same place. Once you’re rich in America, you’ll never suffer any consequences for your stupidity.
If one thinks flooding is something to worry about then do the math. The oceans cover about 140 million square miles. If the entire Arctic and Antarctic ice packs were to melt (totalling about 28 million square miles during their peaks) any ocean rise would be microscopic at best. Remember that the Arctic is mostly sea ice so the volume will shrink. Remember the 10 inches of ice to 1 inch of water ratio?
Eh? 10 inches of SNOW melts to 1 inch or so of water. 10 inches of ICE will melt to just under 10 inches of water.
The figures I’ve seen are that the Antartic and Greenland ice sheets have between them enough water (currently perched above sea level) to raise the oceans by close to 300 feet. That’s something to worry about.
Even the way the temperatures are taken is a joke now. Way back when, a thermometer was nailed to a tree in the shade a certain height off the ground and so many meters away from any structure. A man on horseback would make his rounds and note the temp by eyeball from horseback. Now it’s become digital and more precise.
Many of the thermometers being used have been “conveniently placed” to produce the desired results. In all seriousness here, one thermometer is placed under the eave of a building directly above a central air unit, another is placed on top of a building next to a roof mounted A/C unit, another is placed next to a couple of junk cars where the thermometer receives reflected light from the windshields, etc. Kind of skews things a bit, huh?
For the National Weather Service to accept thermometer readings, they have to be carefully placed to avoid all these biases. For example, at an airport, the thermometer is supposed to be inside a louvered, white-painted housing a certain distance off the ground, and away from artificial heat sources and pavement. In a city, it can get a little more complicated to avoid heat sources, but biases have to be accounted for when compiling data into climatological records.
I’ve never heard of anyone taking these two positions simultaneously, but it seems to be the only logical alternative:
- To “GW Deniers”: What part, exactly, do you disagree with W/R/T GW theory?
a. That CO2% in atmosphere isn’t increasing? (Pretty easy to test for; been done for decades, if not more)
b. That CO2 is transparent to wavelengths corresponding to sunlight yet opaque to heat radiated from the earth? (Fill a lab w/ CO2 and shine a light through it…there’s your answer.)
c. That we don’t know the wavelength of solar and terrestrial radiation? (Try googling OPTICAL PYROMETER.)
d. Or is it “the earth is a hugely dynamic system and there’s so many feedback mechanisms that there’s no way to be certain that increasing the insulating effects of the atmosphere will wind up having on global climate?”
Well, as a, b, and c are so cut-and-dried, the only argument worth a response is d, but there’s the catch: the Earth is SO complex, it’ll probably never be possible to predict the future climate with exact certainty–so, we never need to do anything! However, considering we know we’re running a CO2 surplus, we know CO2 is an insulator, and we observe temperaturtes are rising, the simplest explanation (see OCCAM’S RAZOR) is that there’s a causal link.
Let me paint a parallel to what the deniers are arguing: Suppose I go out, drink way too much, and don’t quite remember getting home. The next day, I awake to a pounding head and a queasy stomach. I say, “Damn, I’ve got a hangover!” to which a “hangover denier” responds: “How do you KNOW that? You can’t remember last night! Perhaps someone beat you about the head unto submission, then forced you to eat bad lunchmeat! Symptoms explained!” Now, to be entirely honest, no I can’t rule that out, but I’m not terribly sold on it, either.
Now, for the pro-GWers:
How many times have I heard, “GW is coming! We must do something [typically implying Kyoto compliance]!” Yes to the first, no to the second.
Here’s the thing: NO GW plan anyone is putting forth will “solve” GW. Any idea how much CO2 emissions would need to be cut back? Well over 90%! All anyone’s plan for GW will do is “slow things down a bit.” It’s as if I were being driven to Camden, NJ (sorry, had to pick on someone) at 90 mph and I repsond “No! I don’t want to go there! I DEMAND you slow down to 65 MPH at once!” What have I really changed? Meanwhile, as ecological resources are scarce, effort exerted on reduction means that LESS resources are available for relocation, seawalls, farm relocation, etc.
Look, in my lifetime, it makes a “little” difference if we implement CO2 reduction; for the next generation, a bit more. For humanity as a whole (let alone “the Earth”), it makes virtually none: humans will, wether quickly or very slightly slower, burn ALL the stored energy on the planet, then find another energy source (or not). In the “million year window” that geological things are measured in, it makes no diferencve if this takes 200, 500, or 1,000 years.
So, accept that GW will happen, cut obvious waste, then batten the hatches and prepare for the inevitable. Anyone with a more efficient solution, I’d love to hear it…
REAL SCIENTISTS AND THE HEAD OF THE WEATHER CHANNEL HAVE PROVEN THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX PERPETRATED BY AL GORE AND OTHERS TO MAKE THEM MILLIONAIRES, AND THE EARTH GOES THRU THESE CYCLES ALL THE TIME! DON’T YOU ALL REALIZE THAT MAN IS NOT POWERFUL ENOUGH TO CONTROL THE ENVIRONMENT
What real scientists are you talking about??? The ones paid for by Exxon Mobil. My daughter works with some of the TOP SCIENTISTS in the country at MIT. They all believe in Global Warming.
The plant matter and animal matter was covered with debris and eventually compressed over millions of years. It then turned into coal or oil. Where does atmospheric carbon dioxide come into it?
I hope iowasmiles was joking and not incredibly stupid. Yes, that CO2 came out of the atmosphere. The point is that the CO2 that took hundreds of millions of years to be taken out of the atmosphere (a little at a time) and locked away in fossil fuels, is being put back into the atmosphere in a couple of centuries.
“Once you’re rich in America, you’ll never suffer any consequences for your stupidity.”
I don’t agree. Donald Trump, for instance, has lost his fortune at least once - all of it. But he know how to earn it back and did so. And remember that there are a lot of poor and middle income people in Miami who will be just as wet as the rich folds in the highrise. Maybe wetter, since they actually live at ground level. If south Florida is inundated by the ocean about 100 years from now, all south Floridians will need help. I hope it doesn’t come to that, but it would be even more expensive than New Orleans.
Hooray for you and your refusal to buy into the “Greenhouse Gas” illusion. When King James was on the throne in Great Britain, subjects were taxed on sunlight(determined by the number of window panes they had),and for fresh air (determined by the number of windows that would open). Hence the number of boarded windows in many old structures there. Supposedly, this would curb man’s detrimental effect on the environment. (and provide a little extra cash-flow (ha-ha)). It’s not much different today. The average person is going to be blamed for everything. In the UK, for example, farmers are charged 1 Pound per head for their cows to pay for the methane they produce when they belch & fart…Sorry; I’m ranting. This whole thing is soooo much deeper than most people realize. Yes there is a larger agenda and it involves the political of most nations. I couldn’t begin to explain it, but this website does a fine job. http://cuttingthroughthematrix.com . Boy, am I going to take some hits on this!
Smaller cars…electric motors…yeah, right. Plug your car in to an electrical outlet —where the heck does THAT electricity come from?
The fact is that WATER VAPOR is the most prevalent greenhouse gas there is…and what are we supposed to do? Cover the oceans and coat lakes and rivers and streams with come goo so that water doesn’t evaporate? Talk about ruining our natural environment!!
Go ahead and conserve energy all you like - that’s fine and dandy - but don’t get the GOVERNMENT involved in this stuff. Our environment is SO much cleaner here in the US than it is in India or China - and what are THEY doing about keeping their air clean. NOTHING!
So WE should hit the brakes and change OUR behavior to change the climate and prevent any further global warming? NONSENSE!
I can explain Global Warming very fast:
- To fill the liberal medias wallet, as well as Al Gore’s wallet and the other demagogs that strike with him
- Lastly, it’s fake
Simple as that! Don’t believe me? Check out a true look at it, not a channel with an agenda!
“The fact is that WATER VAPOR is the most prevalent greenhouse gas there is…and what are we supposed to do?”
That’s correct. Water vapor does hold heat on the Earth. So do the other constituents of air. The issue is ever increasing amounts of greenhouse gases that increase temperature enough that there are large, detrimental changes in climate.
“Our environment is SO much cleaner here in the US than it is in India or China - and what are THEY doing about keeping their air clean. NOTHING! So WE should hit the brakes and change OUR behavior to change the climate and prevent any further global warming? NONSENSE!”
Gotta start somewhere. And a defeatist attitude will not help anyone.
“Check out a true look at it, not a channel with an agenda!”
Do you have any suggestions? BTW, the TV show I saw did not try to sell me anything. There were also no pledge drives involved. They said that we have about 100 years before things get seriously out of whack. BTW, you seem to be practicing demagoguery more than the folks on TV I saw the other night discussing global warming.
I do not claim to know if global warming is man made or not. However, it is clear that it is being used as a reason to attack the automobile, by those who are anti automobile anyway. If we assume that carbon dioxide Is the main cause of global warming ( a very debatable assumption) and we then assume that the average MPG of the United States automotive fleet is doubled overnight, the world wide reduction in CO2 output is only about 3 1/2% !!! However, the anti car groups use global warming to attack the automobile while failing to attack the greater sources of CO2, such as electricity generation. I do not disagree with the need to increase the fuel mileage of the US fleet, but this will have only a slight effect on CO2 production and the alleged connection to global warming. If CO2 really is the problem, the cars are just a drop or two in the bucket.
I’d like to add a few comments and questions; and keep it simple. I’ll take it one step at a time for the purpose of simplification. Television is the very last bastion that anyone should turn to for info is the comment, although the vast majority absorb everything on the screen as the the pure, unvarnished truth.
My question is this. As you sit there watching someone on TV reciting things about man-made global warming do any of you know EXACTLY what they are basing these comments on? There’s a follow-up here.
Nice article in MSN.com today. One of the founders of Greenpease has come out all for Nuclear Power. They did a in-depth interview with him. It’s worth the read.