You really have no sense of humor, do you Mr.? Can I call you Mr.? 
Iām glad you finally found a use for your wife!
What?! Please try again. Thereās to much static.
CO2 is necesary for life on nearth, the question is how much is the right amount. Together with other greenhuse gasses, such as water vapor, methane, and others, we need the right amount to make us comfortable. If we can tolerate the rise in ocean levels, as have our acestors, we can handle higher tempoeratures, but some people in dry countires with nowhere to go will suffer.
Bjorn Lomberg, a Danish climatologist believes in Global Warming, but is more optimistic. His book, āCool It!ā, lays out plan for coping with it.
The progonosis for the US is that the South (especially the SW) will be much drier and hotter, the North warmer and about the dryness, and Alaska will be much warmer and wetter, with agriculture practicable. Canada on the whole will be wetter and warmer, as will Russia. Those 2 countries will actually benefit from Global Warming.
What about lessening our dependence upon fossil fuels by utilising one of the most costly to produce and inefficient fuels known to man; ethanol?
The increased junking of destroyed vehicles over time, the diversion of grains normally used to produce foods, the resulting increase in food prices and the two to three percent loss in fuel efficiency along with the already high comparative price of producing this stuff should really help us out, donāt you think?
The next to last paragraph in my last post is the āmeatā. It all boils down to this: itās better to be safe than to be sorry.
OK, thanks. I agree that we should start planning soon to avoid difficulties as the decades roll on. Decades? Yes, I believe that we have a lot of time, but it is not unlimited.
The comment about polar ocean water light absorption may have had to do with the fact that ice reflects sunlight. The more open ocean without ice, the warmer the ocean becomes which in turn melts more ice.
Humans have lived through at least one ice age, but we have created new poisonous molecules that the earth has never seen before. The poisons are everywhere including marine life and the earth that we farm. So our ability to survive major climate changes will be compromised by these poisons we have introduced into the biosphere. We can argue about how much humans have contributed to global warming until all the glaciers are gone, but we will still have to deal with issues like water and global poisoning.
Can I call you Mr.?
Sure. 
Or āSirā will do.
Does that count as humor?
A barrel of crude (42 gallons) oil is refined in roughly 19.4 gallons (46.2%) gassoline, 4.1 gallons of kerosine type jet fuel (9.8%), 10.5 gallons (25%)of diesel and heating oil. The rest other products, such ass lube oil, aspalt, etc.
Cars thus take 46.2 % of the barrel and trucks about one half of the 25%, or 12% of the diesel/heating, and about 10% goes to jet fuel.
The total for transportation is thus 46.2+9.8+12=68%
In North America and Europe the use of the fuel is determined by car needs, less gasoline would mean less residual oil and asphalt, and greatly reduced crude oil needs.
Only in poor countries with few cars does gasoline not play an important role.
āOK, thanks. I agree that we should start planning soon to avoid difficulties as the decades roll on. Decades? Yes, I believe that we have a lot of time, but it is not unlimited.ā
Iām a firm believer in ātipping pointsā and donāt think that the decades or slow trend towards climate change is a healthy one. We have never passed this way before under these circumstances as a species and would be fool hearty to minimize the urgency.
"Are you aware that the polar icecaps reached their larges mass this winter since record keeping has begun on them? Or that the glaciers in Greenland are growing? "
Simply saying something does not make it true. Nor does it give the person who says it any credibility. However, it does suggest a very clear link between how little the average citizen understands of environmental, technological and scientific matters and the policies of the US government.
Hiā¦Iām the guy who started the post in the first place (the one who lived in Edmonton, Alberta). I inquired with the Canadian Govāt office who produced the brochures (they also have transparent window decals):
Personal Vehicles Initiative/Programme des v?hicules personnels
Transportation Energy Use Division/Division de lāutilisation de lāenergie reliee au transport
Office of Energy Efficiency - Natural Resources Canada
Office de lāefficacit? ?nerg?tique - Ressources Naturelles Canada
580 Booth Street, Ottawa, ON, K1A OE4
http://idling.gc.ca
http://marcheauralenti.gc.ca
The people with whom a corresponded have agreed to send me a few hundred brocheres and also fifty of the window decals. I told them that if it were possible for me to distribute them in a meaningful way, that I would come back for more.
Although not my original intention, it would be possible to distribute them to those who are interestedā¦ I can be contacted at fentonh [at] gmail.com or via my website http://www.freewebs.com/fentonh (send me a stamp or two for the postage).
There is a not-so-subtle irony that the Canadian government must step in to compensate for an unwillingness on the part of the US government to do anything but talk about a meaningful level of CO2 reduction.
Fenton
āwe should start planning soon to avoid difficulties as the decades roll on. Decades? Yes, I believe that we have a lot of time, but it is not unlimited.ā
Iām sorry but that statement is incorrect.
I just saw a talk by Lester R. Brown of the Earth Policy Institute. His organization provides data and illustrates trends on global warming and its consequences for (human) civilization. If interested, then the link is: http://www.earth-policy.org
You donāt have decades. The basic message that his work has shown -and this is backed up by many other researchers is: the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by 80% must occur within the next TEN years NOT twenty years.
And for anyone in the peanut gallery who might squeak ājust theoryā or āenvironmentalist liberalsā. here is the link to the Chemical Society of Washington (part of the American Chemical Society) who hosted the talk. They give a brief background on his credentials towards the end of that second page: http://membership.acs.org/W/WashDC/meet.html
Check it out if you dare
bye
fentonh
Well the only question in there is:
āHow do scientists know the concentration of carbon dioxide over the millenniums? They collect ice core samples from Greenland and Antarctica and determine the carbon dioxide concentrations in the ice strata.ā
That is true. And we just went back several thousand years more due to the new science station in Antarctica. But higher resolution data are extracted from tree rings and carbon analysis. Also cores are taken in deep sea drilling operations which are analyzed for compostion.
Earth is always in an elliptical orbit. We are also wobbling about the spin axis, the change in climate due to this and possible explanation for the ice ages is called the Milankovitch Cycle. Its period is on the order of 10ās of thousands of years. The most convincing data record is from Mona Loa on Hawaii where Thomas Keeling started montitoring CO2 levels in the last century.
The long records deal a lot with isotope ratios and compare on average three records to calibrate the histories. So Carbon and other chemicals are observed in sediment and ice cores and vary in how well things can be resolved based on how fast the substance was deposited and was able to trap the molecules with the signature.
Can you give the reference to the show. Name of episode, program, any other identifiers?
NASA says Mars is also heating up at the same rate. Do the Martians also drive fossil fuel burning vehicles? Back in the 70s, the exprts told us Earth was heading into a new ice age and within 50 years we were all going to freeze to death. Is man powerful enough to change climates? Besides, wouldnāt it be nice if climate everywhere was like Southern CA?
Lets start all over again. With all the names you call people, it seems to affect your ability to actually think. I will agree that if you could get R-12 way up there where ozone is created, it would affect the production of ozone. You canāt get it up there for a simple reason. Rocks donāt fly. R-12 is a heavy molecule that simply cannot float miles into the air.
It was all computer modeling, and the scientists admitted it. There was no field research which showed the presence of R-12 way up there in the sky. Volcanoes emit the same sort of chemicals.
Have you noticed the entire fuss over ozone has disappeared, and everyone tries to avoid talking about it, except to tell people to go away and shut up, hoping everyone forgets the hoax? There was no ozone problem; there is no ozone problem; there is no real problem with GW.
One thing I learned over my lifetime is when people start calling names, they have nothing to say, period. You clearly have nothing to say, and are part of the problem of dumbing down our society.
There was no ozone problem caused by R-12. There is no global warming. I am amazed at how many people who seem to be able to read and write cannot read the actual measurements, and note there has been no warming since 1998,and this year showed a rapid reduction in temperature.
This sort of vicious attack in whatever form is available is pretty much standard over history. When people like me ā it was Republicans who freed the slaves ā said African slaves were human beings and should not be property, people like you burned our barns and shot us. In Germany, when people like me said Jews were human and should not be exterminated, people like you sent us to the chambers with the Jews. Over and over.
This deal of cow methane was another hoax. Quite a few years ago, a reporter encountered an inter-office memo of the joke sort at the EPA, which made this humorous claim that cow methane was the principle source of air contamination. He thought it was serious ā MS journalists arenāt too smart, or we wouldnāt have this GW hoax and would not have had the R-12 hoax ā and it hit the presses. The EPA leader at the time spent years trying to squelch the hoax with no success, but it is still there.
There have been several new power plants built within a few miles of my mobile home in Texas, in the last few years. None of them uses coal, but natural gas, which I believe is local in nature. When they were built, there were no protestors; no major law suits trying to stop them like in most places. As a result, our electrical rates are almost obscenely low. At one time, California, with all its environmental rules stopping new generators, sued us for charging them too much to sell them electicity. They seemed to think since they chose not to produce electricity themselves, we owe it to them at whatever price they want to pay.