Global Warming Explained

Maintenance/Repairs
101

It’s still unclear to me how many of you have actual schooling in the meteorology/climatology field. Anything you know about this subject has to come from one of three places.
A. Meteorology school.
B. Self education from technical manuals on the subject.
C. Television, newspaper, Time magazine, etc.

If it comes from C then you belong in the surveyed professionals whose only knowledge is gleaned from general media sources.

Since I consider there to be a lot of hypocrisy on this subject let me ask this question.
Are you really, honestly, truly concerned about man’s use of fossil fuel and do you leave your PC on 24/7?
According to Microsoft, doing that burns roughly 65 dollars worth of electricity per year as compared to turning it off when not in use. Multiply your PC X countless millions of others in the U.S. only.
(We know exactly why PCs are left on 24/7. A tiny bit of laziness and a lot of impatience waiting on the latest, lousy version of Windows to load.)

102

It’s sad some people pay absolutely no attention to science until they have a need, usually medical in nature.
Yes “skipper” we can have an effect om our climate. Remember, our atmosphere is as thick as the paint on a globe that represents our planet proportionately. No we don’t have the ability to alter the amount of energy that our planet gets from the sun, but how that energy is dispersed is well under our control over time.

To deny this is to retreat back into the “freon” age. Let’s say it is a hoax. What’s wrong with cleaner air and energy independance, and getting energy directly from the sun instead of through poluting “liquid gold”.

Oh, excuse me…greeney’s just want your money, it’s the oil companies that are the benevolent ones that are looking out for our health and interest. Guess I had it all wrong.

103

When do you plan on being energy independent?

We’ve converted electric utility plants from coal to “cleaner” burning oil and natural gas plants over the last couple of decades. Meanwhile we export our coal to China where they burn it to power their industrial machine. Remember, cars and light trucks only consume about 13% of the oil we use in this country. The largest users are electrical generation. Since I don’t see us doing without electricity any time soon, wouldn’t we be better off to generate power from our own coal, hydro electric power, solar, wind, and nuclear plants? Of course we would, but it’s not going to happen because the oil companies want us to continue consuming oil. What better way than using it to generate electricity that uses far more than automobiles ever will.

There’s the insane notion that we can substitute ethanol for gasoline. What’s it got us? High corn prices, high wheat prices because wheat land is being planted in corn for more profit, high beef prices because cattle are fed high priced corn, high bread and cereal prices because they are made with wheat. What we haven’t got is a viable alternative fuel. When it take 1 gallon of fuel or nearly so to produce 1 gallon of ethanol, we aren’t gaining anything.

There’s nothing wrong with clean air and clean water. There is a problem with economically providing the basic needs of people being food, water, and shelter. A lot of the global warming initiatives aren’t practical because people aren’t going to accept not having their air conditioners, heat pumps, computers, televisions, etc.

If you figure out how to reduce the electricity demand, fresh water demand, food demand, and shelter demands of 250 million people in the US, you’ll figure out how to reduce the consumption of fuels. The problem is, the only way to do that is kill off a significant portion of the population.

Skip

104

On the left you have Hx2, on the right, Hx4. On the left, Ox6, on the right, Ox4.

Try, 2 C8H18 + 25 O2 = 18 H2O + 16 CO2

However, in an automobile engine, we typically do not get complete combustion of the gasoline (Approximated here as Octane) and Some of this CO2 is released as CO + O. The extra O may bind with the ever present Nitrogen, (78% of our atmosphere) to produce Nitrates and Nitrites. The extra O may bind with impurities in the gasoline such as Sulfur to form sulfates and sulfites.

Also, a gallon of water weighs about 8lbs, not 68 lbs. One cubic foot of water weighs about 62 lbs at 72 degrees F.

We also have 18x34 H2O to 16x46 CO2 === 612 H2O to 736 CO2 so the weight of CO2 is greater than the weight of water produced (assuming complete combustion) from (8x14) + (18x1) === 130 Octane.

Octane has a density of about 0.7 kg/l (approx 5.8lb/gal (US)) so 1 gal of Octane produces 5.8612/130 = 27 lbs of water and 5.8736/130 = 32lbs of carbon dioxide.

105

" There’s nothing wrong with clean air and clean water."

Well, there’s a step in the right direction. Now if we can say that perhaps clean water and air are preferred, then we would be in agreement.

I’m not in favor of lowering my energy consumption one bit. I am in favor of making decisions independently. If two alternatives for producing sufficient energy cost the same (ethanol definitely excluded) and one is the most enviornmentally friendly, that should be our choice.

Who could argue with that…at times it is necessary to listen to the “greenies”. Everyone has valid options.

106

“(We know exactly why PCs are left on 24/7. A tiny bit of laziness and a lot of impatience waiting on the latest, lousy version of Windows to load.)”

I knew there was a reason to own a Mac.

107

Actually, that’s wrong. Many studies have shown that in the short term, the easiest and quickest way to cut our carbon emissions is to conserve. More effective and cheaper in the short run than changing sources. Of course new sources are needed, but that can’t be done fast.

Walk or use public transport sometimes. Plug air leaks and insulate your home. Transition to compact fluorescent light bulbs. Consider energy use in all purchases. Eat less meat (cow farts are a major source of methane, a worse greenhouse gas than CO2).

Support research and development in alternate fuel sources, including fusion, for which the government has recently cut research funding.

108

Eat less meat (cow farts are a major source of methane, a worse greenhouse gas than CO2).

You don’t want to be in the room with me after soup beans.

Skip

109

Interesting observations, Mr Phil!

Yes, the earth has been very warm in the past. When dinasaurs roamed the earth, the CO2 content was very high, and there were no polar icecaps, no glaciers, and the ocean water level was several hundred feet higher than now. People could have survived in this climate, just by breathing a little deeper, as long as they were on high ground.

As various posters have pointed out, less dramatically than Al Gore, a 300 feet loss of the Antarctic and Greenland icecaps (which is currently taking place) will raise ocean water levels by about 12 feet. A complete melting of these and other icecaps will raise the water by over 100 feet.

Mr. Phil, I don’t know where you live, but Miami and other low cities as well as Bangladesh will eventually be underwater. In the past, the earth’s population was very small and successive warm periods flooded coastal areas, but the population just moved to higher ground.

I live 2500 feet above sea level in a cold to moderate climate, so if you live in Galveston or New Orleans, I should not really care whether you drown or not, since you believe global warming is no big deal.

110

Logics; thanks for the recalculation; I was just using a rough rule of thumb to counteract the 1000 lbs of CO2 argument.

Agree that we have incomplete combustion and SOME O2 combines with N2 to form NOX.

With respect to weigths, I was using relative molecular weights, and should have adjusted later for actual fuel consumed (1 gallon) in 20 miles of driving, relative to the CO2 resulting from burning that gallon.

111

Those whose jobs are based on climate change would surely wish to elevate the issue to EARTHSHAKING. And they are seeing some success. If the profit were taken our of the issue how important would it be?

112

Remember, cars and light trucks only consume about 13% of the oil we use in this country.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20071109_A_recipe_for_cutting_U_S__oil_usage.html

WRONG…Quote from Attached article…About two-thirds of U.S. oil usage is for transportation, primarily for automobiles. It might be 13% TOTAL energy is used by auto’s…NOT oil though. Electrical plants in the US mainly use Coal and Natural Gas and Nuclear. Very few use oil.

http://www.nef1.org/ea/eastats.html

The problem is, the only way to do that is kill off a significant portion of the population.

Very narrow minded. There are MANY ways to reduce energy consumption. Solar has made DRASTIC strides in the past year. Solar panels today are producing 2-3 times the amount of electricity they were just 10 years ago for the same square area. New technologies in solar are predicting another 200 - 300% increase by 2015. The payback for a solar system is 10 years. It was 30 years just 10 years ago. By 2015 it’s predicted to be less then 5 years.

New low-power light-bulbs DRASTICALLY reduce electrical usage. New LCD TV’s and monitors use far less electricity then the older Catho-Ray tubes.

With technology that’s available TODAY. We can reduce our consumption of energy by 30%. That’s a significant savings.

113

Just like my Mac, my PC sleeps when not in use. Windows doesn’t need to load each time it wakes up. The difference is that my Mac won’t run most of the software that I use. Is this the answer to a car question?

114

We built our house 12 years ago. Small but well over 2.5K square feet. We live in central Maine and heat our house and domestic hot water on one double tank fill up for the entire year(<400 gallons). We use NO wood and run a generator with oil furnace a blazing when electricity runs out. This is old technology of 6’ fiberglass insulated walls and with 1" polyurethane (sp) foam board under sheet rock on exterior walls and attention to tightness and sill insulation.

It added less than $1,000 in material to construction cost. It’s amazing how many new houses are going up today with minimal code insulation and no thought to conservation that’s a no brainer.

That’s the kind of thinking and concervation we should be in tune with. It’s not a big life style change. When we buy a new outboard, it’s a 4 stroke, but we still use it as much as the old two stroke. Lifestyle changes that you can accomadate to and still do your part.

115

Agree; personal initiatives are important. Our house was built in 1979 with 2x4 walls, cedar siding and an ineffciient gas furnace.

We took up Al Gore’s challenge of reducing our CO2 emissions by at least 10% over the 1990 levels.

Starting in 2004 when we returned from an overseas assignment, we did the following:

  1. Fully insulated the basement with 6" of fibreglass.

  2. Installed a high efficiency (98%) condensing gas furnace.

  3. Installed new efficient water heater

  4. Installed additional insulation in attic, improved weatherstripping

  5. Changed 36 light bulbs with fluorescent ones; Xmas lights with LEDs

  6. Traded 2 8cyl cars for 2 4cyl cars.

  7. Bought battery operated lawnmower and compost clippings

  8. Changed appliances with new Energy Star efficent ones.

The overall result was a 45% decrease in greenhouse gasses and an actual 42% reduction in energy (BTUs)used. Heating, for instance went from 252 million to 145 million BTUs (1450 therms); Electric power consumption from 9700 down to 7000 kilowatt hours. When we had Chevy Chase Christmas Vacation style lights in the 90s our electric bill showed 13,000 kilowatt hours!!

All these changes were cost-effective and the longest had a payback of just over 5 years.

116

Your article says 2/3 of oil is used for transportation. That’s a pretty dadgum broad statement. I’m talking about cars and light trucks. Transportation includes heavy trucks, railroads, ships, and airplanes. It may or may not also include running the pumping equipment that delivers the gas and diesel by pipeline.

The fact is, light truck and car use of fuel, primarily gasoline, is a small portion of our oil usage relative to the whole.

You are correct, Coal and Natural Gas along with Nuclear provide most of our power. However, during peak times, most peak generators are oil or diesel. When they are running, they are really burning some serious fuel.

You green guys raise holy hell when someone wants to build a coal fired power plant in Eastern Kentucky and end up forcing the plant to be built in Texas. That just means a lot of extra transportation expense to haul the coal from the mines in Kentucky to the plant in Texas. Far cheaper and easier it would be to ship electricity from Kentucky to the east coast than it would be to ship coal to Texas and then electricity back East. Then you wonder why our oil consupmtion is in the clouds?

The Tree huggers and lawyers have combined to make it impractical for industry to operate in this country to the point that 99% of our goods are being made in China and Mexico. It’s requiring us to ship ore, coal, and lumber there, then ship the goods back. Recongn if there weren’t so many class action lawsuits against manufacturers and so much red tape to build a manufacturing plant that we might save fuel making McDonalds Happy meal toys in the USA somewhere? Nah, it couldn’t be that simple could it?

As far as replacing tv’s with LCD’s, that’s all good and well, and probably happening as we speak thanks to whoever’s idea it was to change from analog to digital tv signals. That said, there’s no way that one could possibly save enough energy switching from aa Tube tv to a newfangled flat tv to cover the amount of energy used to mine the materials to make the tv, haul those materials to a processing plant, Process those materials into tv part, haul those parts to assembly plants that put the tv together, then ship the tv 6000 miles over the ocean to a container yard, haul it across the country by rail, ship it by UPS from the warehouse, go fetch it in your neighbor’s truck because it won’t fit in your Geo Metro. Each of those steps uses energy and unless the savings is close to 100% in energy, it’s just not justifiable. It’s the same theorem being perpetrated to turn corn into moonshine fuel. Sounds like a good idea, and makes people think they are doing something, but in reality, it’s a wheel spinner at best.

Skip

117

Luckily, by examining ice cores, seabed cores,and tree rings in very old trees, we can go back at least 1000 years and accurately log what temperature and precipatation were over that period.

The findings very accurately parallel the actual weather recorded (by description, what plants grew)in Europe since the Middle Ages.

All these previous fluctuations were cuased by natural cycles and random events, such as massive volcanic eruptions and meteorites hitting the earth.

All these methods together allow past weather patterns to be documented, so that natural cycles and non man-made issues (such as the Little Ice Age) are isolated.

In actual fact, of course it does not matter much if you believe in man-made global warming as such; we will have to cope with it , since tempertures will keep rising for the next 40 years at least, and icepacks will keep melting and the US South will keep getting dryer and dryer.

I don’t know if those in charge of water supply for Southwestern cities believe in global warming or not but they are very busy planning for a future with less water, more evaporation, and higher temperatures.

118

You green guys raise holy hell when someone wants to build a coal fired power plant in Eastern Kentucky and end up forcing the plant to be built in Texas.

Gee…I don’t know about you…but I like breathing Nitrogen and Oxygen…NOT CO2 and toxic fumes from a Coal plant. The coal industry is NOT putting any money into trying to build a single plant that can burn cleanly. It’s NOT in their best interest.

The Tree huggers and lawyers have combined to make it impractical for industry to operate in this country to the point that 99% of our goods are being made in China and Mexico.

Tree hugers and lawyers have NOTHING to do with our goods being shipped overseas. IT’S CALLED GREED. If it’s the tree hugers and lawyers causing the jobs going over-seas…why are Software Engineering Jobs going over seas??? Or accounting…or Chemical Engineering…or Bio-Technology??? What does the tree hugers have to do with them???..I’LL TELL YOU…NOTHING…Same with the clothes or shoes you buy…NOTHING. It’s CHEAP labor…VERY CHEAP labor. I can’t even pay my property taxes on the salaries they pay Software Engineers in China.

As far as replacing tv’s with LCD’s, that’s all good and well, and probably happening as we speak thanks to whoever’s idea it was to change from analog to digital tv signals. That said, there’s no way that one could possibly save enough energy switching from aa Tube tv to a newfangled flat tv to cover the amount of energy used to mine the materials to make the tv, haul those materials to a processing plant, Process those materials into tv part, haul those parts to assembly plants that put the tv together, then ship the tv 6000 miles over the ocean to a container yard, haul it across the country by rail, ship it by UPS from the warehouse, go fetch it in your neighbor’s truck because it won’t fit in your Geo Metro. Each of those steps uses energy and unless the savings is close to 100% in energy, it’s just not justifiable. It’s the same theorem being perpetrated to turn corn into moonshine fuel. Sounds like a good idea, and makes people think they are doing something, but in reality, it’s a wheel spinner at best.

HUH??? You’re adding the cost of energy to build and ship a LCD TV or monitor…but NOT deducting the energy to build a regular Catho-Ray Tube TV. The cost of building and shipping a Catho-Ray TV is FAR MORE COSTLY then a LCD TV. The REAL reason stores like Best-Buy and Wall-Mart are phasing out the Catho-Tv’s is because of cost of shipping and storage. A 32" LCD TV weighs about 1/3 of my 27" Sony Trinitron.

You’re making a comparison of owning a LCD TV and NOT owning a TV altogether. BTW…there are Catho-Ray TV’s that have a digital signal AND are HDTV…in fact the quality of these TV’s is better then plasma or LCD…It just takes up a LOT more room and uses a LOT more energy to run.

119

A year back,I was temporarily living up north, During Earth Day 2007, I learned from some Canadian government representatives that it is more carbon-efficient to turn off a car’s motor if it idles for longer than ten seconds. That’s right: ten seconds. That also means that you save gas, i.e., money.

Since becoming aware of this, I time the traffic lights near to where I live. I have found it very easy to simply turn off the engine while waiting at a light that has a two-to-three minute cycle.
Back then, I picked up a brochure explaining this. Just yesterday, I looked for the brochure on the internet. It is no longer there, but the information contained within it is on the following web page:
http://oee.rncan.gc.ca/communities-government/climate-change.cfm?attr=24

The Canadian Office of Energy Efficiency has however said that they will send copies of the brochure and also a transparent sticker for the windshield.

Some of you who use your cars more than I do might find this to be worthy of a conscientious effort. Since this is right off of the webs-site of a government that at least sometimes takes environmental protection more seriously than ours does, the eternal nay-sayers might think twice before trying to bark up this tree.

120

I missed the show but have heard people talking about it. Driving smaller, more efficient vehicles is definitely what we need to do. The ultimate goal eventually being to total replace all vehicles on the road w/ hybrids, or fuel efficient ones.