 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Global Warming
|
|
|
Subject: Global Warming From: Roger in Sheffield Date: 21 Nov 00 - 02:25 PM Can someone explain the US position on Global Warming? From interviews on the Radio it seems that in principle the US would like to reduce CO2 emissions........BUT the economy might suffer !!! Who was that american who said ..you can't eat money? Roger in Sheffield, New Atlantis |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: catspaw49 Date: 21 Nov 00 - 02:47 PM Will this affect my new SUV? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: Amergin Date: 21 Nov 00 - 02:53 PM Hey, Spaw, this is a very serious issue and not one to take lightly. I'd appreciate it if you kept your smartass comments to yourself...I gotta go now and burn my garbage. Amergin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: Peter T. Date: 21 Nov 00 - 03:00 PM The U.S. Department of Energy, presumably in a last act of suicidal madness before George W. comes on board and eliminates it, just published a report debunking the whole notion that doing something about global warming would hurt the US economy. Study after study has shown this: the economy-hurting models are all programmed with the most conservative estimates for technological change: surprising for a culture that has proved over and over again how rapidly it can innovate when pushed. The whole thing is ridiculous. It would hurt a small section of the economy, the fossil fuel dinosaurs, and would benefit all the new energy entrepreneurs and everyone else. But the fossil fuel dinosaurs own the place.
It is the Canadian position as well. My own theory is that the dinosaurs are simply trying to recreate the heated swampworld from which they arose: and the rest of us are in thrall to them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: catspaw49 Date: 21 Nov 00 - 03:18 PM You nailed it Peter....as I would expect......but very well put nonetheless. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 21 Nov 00 - 10:09 PM Don't forget, those of you who eat beef, that methane is believed to be a major factor in the greenhouse effect - and cattle fart about 70 million tons of it a year. But I'm not sure that America's more ambivalent than the UK and the rest of Europe, is it Roger? I recall the UK's deputy PM saying the recent severe floods were a wake-up call, and that such extremes of weather would become the norm. But the solution he proposed was that we invest in better defences! No word about easing off on CO2 emmissions. US government studies of climate change and various US universities are agreed that climate change is already upon us. But still the USA churns out more than a quarter of the world's COS emmissions, and is unlikely to cut back at all on that. Some will say it's rough justice that the USA will be among the first to experience the major consequences. But the undisturbed, natural eco-systems in Alaska are the world's last outside the polar regions, and when they're gone, we're all losers. And go they will, by all accounts. The Alaskan (and alas Candadian) permafrost is warming at a phenomenal rate, and if it melts, it will leave cemntral and northern Alaska largely arid. It's already happening round the edges, and the glacier are receding at a dramatic rate too. Because Alaska is so big (eg 2 million lakes, and a glacier as big as Switzerland) climatic changes there will have a major knock-on effect across the whole continent. It looks like America can also expect more storms, twisters and forest fires. Those who thought the fires this year were something to write home about ain't seen nothing yet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 21 Nov 00 - 10:14 PM This PC I'm using seems to keep spelling "emmmmission" wrong. Anyway it's too late at night to be doing this........ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: Malcolm Douglas Date: 21 Nov 00 - 10:53 PM To be fair, I understand that the UK, along with Germany and one or two other countries in the "developed" world is actually meeting the agreed targets for reduction, woefully inadequate though they are. The US appears to be unwilling to do anything at all, though they have mentioned that they would be interested in buying up other nations' "unused" emission allowances... Malcolm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: GUEST,MarkS Date: 22 Nov 00 - 07:06 PM Just wonder. Can anybody point to some experimental evidence that global warming is a man made phenomonon; differing from the ordinary climatic fluctuations which have been going on for the past godzillion years? MarkS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: Rick Fielding Date: 22 Nov 00 - 07:32 PM Well Rush Limbaugh thinks it's Hilary Clinton's fault. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 22 Nov 00 - 07:49 PM Can't quote URLs or do clickies right now MarkS, but you could start by looking up a report published around June/July 2000 called "Climate Change and Our Nation." It summed up the consensus view of the various US Government agencies trying to suss it out. Or look up the work of the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), which is a presidential initiative (Reagan? Bush? Anyway it's being going quite a number of years. The former gives an almost apocolyptic picture for north america over the next 50-100 years, and of course some of the effects are being seen and felt already. All kinds of geographical features, notably glaciers, carry evidence that has helped plot climate change backwards over many thousands, even millions of years. All the evidence is that present rates of change are off the scale compared with anything previously recorded. For instance the Alaskan permafrost has gone from about five below to less than two below in about sixty years - the sort of change that would previously have taken thousands of years. A 40-mile bay (Glacier Bay) has opened up on the northwest coast that wasn't there at all when Vancouver sailed up the coast naming features. Again a spectacular rate of change. The question is whether the new trends result from human activity. My own impression is that the scientific community is largely persuaded on this - but there could be a body of scientific opinion arguing the other way that I'm not aware of. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: kendall Date: 22 Nov 00 - 09:31 PM I'm not a scientist, but, I have noticed certain changes since I was a boy. Cardinals..there never was a cardinal in Maine until recently. The latest immigrant, Possums! Unheard of! Plus, real cold weather and deep snow..nothing like it used to be, and I am not stretching it here either. The polar ice caps only have to melt a little bit to drown low countries such as Bangledesh. Guess what..its happening right now and you would have to be blind to not see it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: thosp Date: 22 Nov 00 - 09:49 PM personally - i don't know why this thread has a bs prefix -- anyway try this blueclicketything peace (Y) thosp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: Ebbie Date: 22 Nov 00 - 09:51 PM Fionn, here in southeast Alaska we don't have permafrost but we do have an example of glacier melt in our back yard. The Mendenhall glacier, the one we call 'the glacier', is retreating at a tremendous rate. It was said earlier to be retreating 10 feet a year but I'm sure that has accelarated the last couple of years- last year a wide wedge collapsed and it is evident that with the newly exposed side the melt will only speed up. The official photos of the glacier don't include the slumped wedge. The ironic thing is that a year ago, the US Forest Service built a new multi-million dollar visitors center. Chances are good that within ten years there will be a parking lot where the glacier face is today and people will have to walk around the bend in order to see any ice and snow at all! Kendall, my family left Oregon in 1949. There were no possums there then at all. I didn't even know anyone who had ever seen one. When I returned there to live in 1956, possums had arrived. As a bit of Urban Myth, the story went that the wartime CCC boys had brought them from the south. When did they reach Maine? If southeast Alaska becomes the banana belt of the country, we'll probably have them here too! Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: Bill D Date: 22 Nov 00 - 11:09 PM the problem is, global warming is only part of the problem...*sigh*...there are a number of issues that are quite serious:
Over-population etc........thing is,the human beings that have the power to do anything about environmental problems are usually the ones who also have a vested financial or cultural interest in NOT doing anything about it!
It reminds me of a definition of Theology I saw: I was sort of hoping Gore was gonna be the President with the Environmental agenda...he knows enough to do it, but he may not even get the chance...(I know..some of you doubt his intentions..*shrug* we shall see, huh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: katlaughing Date: 23 Nov 00 - 12:38 AM Bill, I see global warming as THE problem, as it is the end result of all of the other very valid issues you raised. And, I totally agree with you on people not wanting to confront those issues. Wyoming is a prime example of the fossil fuels boys and the beef industry pairing up to keep their slush fund going and they don't give a damn what it does to anyone, including the citizens of their states and Cheney is one of the prime examples of that kind of crap. Fionn and Ebbie, that is not the half of it with Alaska if Dubya gets his way. For my take on his plans for the Arctic Coastal Plain, please click here. PeterT, we are just going to have to work harder to un-enthrall ourselves, eh? Well put, nice to see you on here. kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: kimmers Date: 23 Nov 00 - 12:46 AM And please, let's be more responsible in our gasoline use. I live in a very mild climate; we get lots of rain and moderate amounts of sun and if we're lucky, half an inch of snow a year. Yet when I go to round at the hospital, half the spaces in the physician parking lot are SUV's, most of which are sparkling clean and probably never leave town. Half of the rest are minivans, and there are a few sports cars. I putt in there in my little Saturn and look lost. SUV's scare me, anywhere; they're a menace to those of us out there on the highway in compact cars trying to be responsible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: Ebbie Date: 23 Nov 00 - 01:05 AM kat, I know, I know... The short sightedness do beat all, as Virginians might say. I look at Dubya and- it's almost not possible to listen to the man. What is it that his supporters see that I'm missing? By the way, I made myself watch Pat Robertson for 30 minutes the other night (I'm housesitting and there's a TV here) and I'm surprised Dubya didn't make him his VP. P.R. is a dishonest, hysterical rabble rouser, in my not-so-humble-opinion. What a pair they would make. Obviously some of us just don't have the insight that some of us have! Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: okthen Date: 23 Nov 00 - 04:16 AM I have heard an alternative theory, at least for the recent bad weather here in the UK. Some guy (don't know his name)has been predicting weather based on his own calculations of sun spot activity. He's said to have predicted our recent storms, but good part is he says it's gone get bad from 23rd december to 26th dec. I shall note the dates but am not looking forward to hom being right. several people take him seriously, insurance companies,he even places bets with labrokes, cheers bill |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: Grab Date: 23 Nov 00 - 07:47 AM Actually, amazing as it may seem, the US is actually talking about RAISING their emissions. Their argument is that the area of forest should count against the amount of CO2 produced, and although the CO2 quota is being reduced, adding the "forest bonus" actually increases the amount of CO2 they're allowed to produce. This in spite of the fact that the environmental scientists say that the forest area doesn't have any offset effect on pollution produced. This doesn't even cover their argument for "selling carbon", ie. they can weasel out of it by buying quota from poorer countries. The duplicity of it makes me sick - all it's saying to the rest of the world is that bcos America is rich, Americans are allowed to treat the environment like shit and get away with it. I know many folks on here are American and don't agree with this policy - I'm not trying to get at Americans in general, just at the maniacs in charge. And while we're at it, there's engine size for American cars. No-one can seriously make a case for a 4-litre engine in a car that's used for commuting or around-town use, or for the SUVs which are springing up everywhere. CARB (the California Air Resources Board) keeps a list of which cars have achieved low-emissions status - amazingly the 4.7l Dodge Durango qualifies as an "ultra-low emissions vehicle"! The reason is that American regulations simply go on percentages of emissions rather than absolute quantity of pollutants, which is a supurious comparison. If you're interested, check out this link for lists of so-called "low emission" vehicles, and be prepared to laugh in disbelief. Grab. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: mkebenn Date: 23 Nov 00 - 07:48 AM I live just south of Buffalo, N.Y. and right now warming doesn't seem to be a problem. I need my Jeep to get to work these days and it has to pass an emmisions test each year. I terrorize no one on the highway and while I agree that the monster Fords and Chevys are over kill my six cylinder engine does no more damage than a Saturn. If the icecaps melt I'd mourn Bangaldesh, but if it took NYC and LA, could be worth it. I'll take some of 'Spaws heat now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: kendall Date: 23 Nov 00 - 10:30 AM The people who are making money from the pollution will be the last to admit that there is a problem in spite of the evidence. On a dead mans door, you can knock forever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: BanjoRay Date: 23 Nov 00 - 10:33 AM Its amazing how many people think global warming isn't too important - its just the climate getting more amenable. Apart from the glaciers melting and sea levels rising, the main problem is the increased energy in the weather - we're going to have hurricanes you wouldn't believe - maybe even in Buffalo, New York, and amounts of rain that'll have us building arks again. Of course I have the answer to all this - you cover the deserts with solar cells, use the electricity produced to convert sea water into oxygen and hydrogen. You run all your vehicles, maybe even your power stations on hydrogen - which burns back to water. The oxygen has loads of industrial uses, and the fuel supply is infinite as long as the sun keeps shining. Ok guys, point out the snags to me. Cheers Ray |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 23 Nov 00 - 06:08 PM Bill D, "over-population" doesn't come into it. The UK has one of the highest population densities in the world - maybe only Japan is higher - and we manage, after a fashion. And world food capacity is more than enough for everyone - we're just wasteful about how we use it. (For instance turning grain into beef takes seven times more grain than if we just eat the grain.) "Overpopulation" is sometimes just a way for us to come to terms with horrors like Bangladesh or Mozambique floods, or the fact that Zambian males live to age 36 on average (yes,thirty-six). mkebenn, if you're sure your motor passed an emissions test,you can go and inhale its exhaust fumes in perfect safety! Who are you kidding? And how much payload do you have to cart around, that you really need those six cylinders? If you paid a bit more for fuel, like people in most other countries, you'd find some way of cutting back your personal contribution to global warming. Thanks for the clickey Kat. If the Arctic Coastal Plain is the same thing as the north slope, I was up there once on my bike (following the pipeline!). If it's going to be Bush, he's going to make a real mess up there. Incredibly (or incredible to me) most Alaskans are right behind him. But not you, Ebbie! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Nov 00 - 09:48 PM "Don't forget, those of you who eat beef, that methane is believed to be a major factor in the greenhouse effect - and cattle fart about 70 million tons of it a year."
No - unless they are feeding the cows on coal or oil. (Which unfortunately isn't as ridiculous as you'd think - they'll feed them on anything these days...) If the cows are eating organis stuff - grass or mashed up turnips or even - God Forbid - mashed up cows, they can fart all they like - it's the same old carbon being recycled around.
It's fossil fuel that matters. The same way that if you run your car on straw etc you can be as smoky as you like, and drive as much as you like - you're just recycling the carbon dioxide the straw etc took up when it grew.
Contrariwise, if you plant forests and it takes up the carbon dioxide from fossil fuels like coal and the oil, in the long term it is useless - all you are doing is slow down the process by which thta carbon dioxide gets into the stmosphere, when the wood burns or rots. Unless of course you can arrange to have it laid down to turn into coal over the next few thousand /million years.
There is no answer that's an answer, unless it cuts down on the use of fossil fuel.
It's a great pity that most of the United States isn't below sea-level, because if it was this problem would be solved very quickly, one way or another. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: MarkS Date: 23 Nov 00 - 10:41 PM Still a bit of a sceptic, because in addition to folk music one of my other enthusiasims is amateur (ham) radio. With long interest in shortwave radio wave propogation, I have come to learn of the influence of sunspot activity on the upper atmosphere, and how the sunspot activity varies over years long periods - the so called Maunder cycle. We are now on the high point of the cycle, judging by how easy it is now to make radio contact with Europe on the higher frequencies compared to a few years ago. Guess that causes me to wonder if many of the phenomona now being attributed to CO2 emission should not more properly be attributed to solar emissions which are cyclical and naturally occurring. Fully willing to keep an open mind and will keep on reading the posts to this interesting subject. MarkS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: Ebbie Date: 23 Nov 00 - 10:50 PM Instead of the British Isles, McGrath? Educate us all you like- we need it- but make use of the power that the US has- don't denigrate it or give up on it. The US has the potential of being a good part of the solution for the world's ills- we have water, arable land, space, and most important of all: a mix of the world's best minds. We need inspiration and direction. And time. God grant that we have time. Fionn, it shouldn't surprise anyone that Alaska lusts after the untouched lands. Take a look at Senator Frank Murkowski, Representative Don Young and Representative Ted Stevens. Three of a kind. My own view is that the US needs Alaska the same way as the world needs the Serengheti plains. It's a unique place that can be kept pristine and a special destination for generations to come. It's just that we need to understand that, to see it clearly, to make it possible. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: catspaw49 Date: 23 Nov 00 - 11:11 PM There is a lot of things coming out the tailpipe of your car. The top five are Carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), Hydrocarbons (HC), Oxygen (O2), and Nitrous Oxide (NOx). From the beginnings of emission control in the early 60's, the first emphasis was put on HC. At that time there were significant HC emissions coming from the crankcase of the engine itself, often far more than what came from the tailpipe. Engines need to vent the pressure built up from internal rotative motion and this problem was initially addressed with the PCV valve which vented back into the air cleaner housing and a variant of this is still in use today. Engineers began to lean mixtures in order to provide less fuel and hence less emissions. They began a system (A.I.R.) that would continue burning of the mixture charge after it left the combustion chamber. Lean mixtures can actually produce more emissions because they will not provide an adequate flame front and a large portion of the fuel/air mix will be expelled. The key to controlling CO, HC, and CO2 has always been in accurate control of timing through all conditions and mixture, again through all conditions. Try to do this the factories produced cars that ran so badly, customers were constantly complaining. Advances in Fuel Injection and Electronic Ignition came over the following years and began to solve the problem. NOx, basically what we know as "laughing gas," was more difficult to control and can only be monitored with equipment that is prohibitvely expensive for field checking, but can be monitored by the government and the factory. The automakers were forced into addresing this problem as they were others, but the solution was there in 1973, the EGR valve. This valve allowed burned exhaust gases to be fed back into the intake manifold and directly into the combustion chambers. What this did was reduce the amount of "Squelch area" in the chamber and lower the combustion temperature from 3000 to 2500 degrees (F) and cut the NOx emissions by almost 70%. Controlling this valve was a major problem. You can't allow this process all the time, only under "warm cruise" conditions. Like many other things, initially the EGR was opened with vacuum and a system of thermal actuators and throttle sensors controlled the vacuum supply. Next came the catalytic converter which prvided a chemical reaction to further clean the exhaust gas of HC and CO (in the dual bed designs) and it was quite sucessful except for a nasty habit of producing sulphur dioxide when flooded with raw fuel from a misfiring engine. What brought all the elements together was the computer. The advent of the On-Board Computer made everything easier to control and better yet, it could be controlled to a precise degree, especially true on fuel injected systems now in complete use by everyone. After a few years, everything coming in and affecting perfomance was measured with things like Manifold Absolute Pressure (MAP, Mass Air Flow (MAF), Barometric Pressure (BAR), Throttle Position, (TPS) sensors and the like. The gas mixture was measured by the computer through a chemical reaction sensor that produced tiny incremental voltages caused by varying concentrations of Oxygen in the exhaust gas. The computer then makes adjustments. Most computers are also equipped with a BLM (Block Learn Multiplier) to remember optimum setups and also to adjust for best running when things are wrong/broken. All this to get to my point. Grab's chart is a bit misleading, but its also pretty accurate in the respect of clean engine technology. Engine size is more a factor in fuel consumption than emissions. What is being built today is VERY clean and I would happily take Fionn up on his tailpipe breathalyzer. The problem is one that is quite old. First, engines wear out and as they do emissions increase. Drive less. Second, people still do not prpoerly maintain their cars and the computers happily keep adjusting things to keep them running pretty well so you don't notice. Maintain your car. Third, I didn't mention lead-free gas, but it was part of the scenario. One benefit outside of emissions was that doing away with lead reduced an awful lot of fouling in the combustion chamber and on the spark plugs. This meant that the advertizing began to run along the lines of "NO Tune-ups Needed for 100,000 Miles." That is complete hogwash. Maintain your car by having the damn thing checked by a qualified wrench with proper equipment at 25,000 mile intervals max. If he IS qualified, he will probably regap the plugs and sell you new ones at 50,000. Maybe less. Although they are not fouled, when you are driving down the road at 60 mph, each plug has seen a spark of at least 50,000 Volts arc across its gap 1500 TIMES EACH MINUTE!! This wears the electrodes and widens the gap. We're going to see Internal Combustion Engines and Hybrids around for quite a time yet, so it would behoove us all to do the obvious things such as driving less. It would also be environmentally a good idea to drive newer models and to properly maintain them if we care at all about the pollution situation. 'Course I got a '66 T-Bird with a 428 that gets 8 mpg. Spaw (and it sits in the garage) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: kendall Date: 23 Nov 00 - 11:20 PM We are also seeing bluebirds and buzzards all in the last 5 years or so. Question..why or how could sun spots poke a huge hole in the ozone layer? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: Ebbie Date: 23 Nov 00 - 11:31 PM Spaw, are you saying that it is harder or impossible to kill oneself in one's garage using a new car? Is the emitted air that clean?? Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: catspaw49 Date: 23 Nov 00 - 11:58 PM Ebbie....YEP. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: Barry Finn Date: 24 Nov 00 - 12:54 AM At the current rate when do we hit the point of no return & that point does exist in the future if this keeps up? Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: kimmers Date: 24 Nov 00 - 01:25 AM Mkebenn, I have no problem with people driving SUV's who truly need them because of inclement conditions... although during our once-every-three-years snowstorms, I see an awful lot of 4WD vehicles slidin' around. You still gotta know how to drive in it; that's most important. I don't, so I live close enough to my office and to the hospital that if worse comes to worse, I can walk. I'd walk every day except that sometimes I have to be able to get from the office to the hospital in a big hurry. However, it's my understanding that collisions involving SUV's and standard passenger cars result in more destruction and loss of life than those that involve two passenger cars. SUV's are taller, so they simply plow over the smaller cars. I don't like the idea of having to buy something big just so that I won't feel dwarfed on the road. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: mkebenn Date: 24 Nov 00 - 05:34 AM Guys and Gals, I fish, I have a 16' boat that I tow. That is the reason for the Jeep. I don't think I'll be suckin' on the tailpipe anytime soon despite 'Spaws wealth of info. When the weather gets bad, my wife takes the Jeep and I drive her 4cly Dodge. Most front wheel drive cars do just fine unless there's a couple of feet of snow, then you need the clearence. And yea, like any other machine, you gotta know how to drive. Mike Bennett |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: Grab Date: 24 Nov 00 - 08:08 AM Spaw and Ebbie, the emissions from modern engines are remarkably good percentage-wise (I'm currently working at a place that designs engine control units), so you can suck exhaust without problems on modern cars. As an illustration, on a recent automotive eng course our lecturer told us that the suicide rate went down for a while when catalytic converters came in, since ppl tried gassing themselves and found they couldn't! Incidentally, that list of low-emission cars isn't mine - it comes from the California Air Resources Board who check these things. But percentage-wise is a relative thing. The problem for emissions (and for global warming) is the absolute volume of CO2 produced. This is a function of the amount of fuel burned, and therefore of your engine size. So whilst a 4.7l Dodge may be as clean percentage-wise as a 1.6l Saturn, the Dodge is still producing roughly 3 times the carbon of the Saturn. Granted, there's reasons for owning SUVs or similar large cars - living in snowy places, living in areas with bad/non-existent roads, towing large loads, etc. But using them to drive your kids 500 yards to school - nope. The US isn't unique here, since SUVs are taking off in the UK as well. But the UK has a natural limit in the shape of expensive petrol and insurance, so that stops too many ppl from owning these things. Whilst the artificially high price of petrol is an irritation over here, the end effect of deterring ppl from making unnecessary car journeys or owning unnecessarily large cars is highly desirable from an environmental PoV. Kendall, this isn't an ozone layer thing, it's the greenhouse effect, caused mainly by CO, CO2 and methane. CO is very damaging but is largely removed by catalytic converters; unfortunately it's only removed by turning it into CO2 which is still a problem. Methane is mostly produced by biological processes (eg. cow-farts and vegetation rotting) and by volcanic activity. Grab. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: kendall Date: 24 Nov 00 - 08:44 AM As you know, I live in Maine. The last time I could have used a suv was in April of 1982. We got two feet of snow, and my Chevvy Nova would not move. After clearing the driveway, I found the roads to be quite passable. My point is, I live in a snow prone area, and I dont need an Urban Assault Vehicle. I think its mostly a macho thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: catspaw49 Date: 24 Nov 00 - 08:58 AM Hey Grab.......I didn't mean to imply the charts were yours. Sorry if I offended you 'cause I sure didn't mean to. Also, as I reread my post I realize that I should have elaborated more on the size/emissions point, but then again I could have elaboarted more on a lot of other crap, but the point's still the same. One thing you brought up which relates to all cars, is the short trip factor. Short trips are tough on any car for a lot of reasons I won't go into, but from an emissions standpoint, they're a disaster. Without going into details, an engine needs entirely different "settings" to run cold and these are all higher in tailpipe pollution, FAR higher, than hot engine specs. And if you're driving a Super Belchfire SUV you are tossing out a LOT more under these conditions than a 1.5 liter Econobox. You see a difference at warm ops, but the difference in cold start is much higher. The manufacturers would pull them out of cold settings way too fast (for the engine) to get them through the EPA driving loop because of that. Again the computers have eased the load on the engine a good bit and allowed a little cleaner cold operation with better driveability, but the emissions are still FAR higher cold than hot. Bikes are nice. On the CO thing.......We used to solder fuel tanks on the car with gas in them by "inerting" the tank with CO. We'd hook up a tailpipe hose to the fuel tank filler using an older car which produced more CO and run it for a half hour and then crank up the torch. This was a great way to get rid of "hangers 'round" in the shop. They'd asked what we were doing and when they found out we were about to stick a torch around a gas tank with gas in it, they'd suddenly remember they had to be elsewhere.(:<)) Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 24 Nov 00 - 08:59 AM Kind of you to quote me from another thread, McGrath, or were you quoting whoever I filched it from? Anyway, I don't think you've quite understood where methane comes from. Here's something else I filched: During animal digestion, methane is produced through the process of enteric fermentation, in which microbes residing in animal digestive systems break down the feed consumed by the animal. Ruminants, which include cattle, buffalo, sheep, and goats, have the highest methane emissions among all animal types because they have a rumen, or large fore-stomach, in which methane-producing fermentation occurs. That's from the US environmental protection agency, which says that 30 per cent of methane emissions in the states in 1997 came from cattle (not only their trouser coughs, but also their breath and from un-covered manure dumps. Methane is bad news because it is 21 per cent more efficient as a heat trap than CO2. Useful stuff Spaw and Grab - instructive debate. MarkS, my wife is into cosmology and says the same as you about sun spots - they definitely come into the equation. But even if they didn't, the long-term effect of what we're putting in the atmosphere must be pretty obvious. Ebbie - I agree 110 per cent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 24 Nov 00 - 09:08 AM Spaw, just seen your last post. Who tried that first? *BG* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: catspaw49 Date: 24 Nov 00 - 09:20 AM LOL......I don't know who the first "rocket scientist" was who figured it would work, but the first time WE tried it, I guarantee you that we were scared shitless! BTW, whenever you fill your tank, you are putting FAR more emissions into the air than when you burn up the entire tank driving. There's some figure that I don't recall, but its in the BIG numbers like a ten thousand times more pollutants, mainly hydrocarbons. Which brings up a question............... Grab or anyone......Do you happen to know how methanol content gas affects things such as methane emissions as opposed to non-methanol gas? Engines basically don't care much for it, but I was wondering if there is any significant methane effects? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: Grab Date: 24 Nov 00 - 10:11 AM Spaw, no offence taken at all, just wanted to clarify it. You're dead right on the short trip thing. And I agree with Fionn - it's one thing to have the theory, but I'd not like to be the sucker who tested it out first! Even old cars will still put out some O2 as well, so it sounds a bit risky! Wouldn't filling it with nitrogen gas be safer (although a bit more expensive)? Emissions when filling up are mostly volatile hydrocarbons. IIRC, California mandates special pumps which seal better than normal around the filler pipe so you don't get the same sort of losses - this is hearsay from guys at work, so I may be wrong. But I think these are mainly ground-level pollutants (ie. breathing problems and smog), and I don't think they cause high-atmosphere problems like CO2 does. I may be wrong, though - I'm not sure about that. Don't know that much about different types of petrol (sorry, gasoline for Americans). There's some guys here at work who are engine design experts so they might know - I could ask them if you want. Grab. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: catspaw49 Date: 24 Nov 00 - 11:05 AM You're right on the low level stuff on fill-up Grab and those nozzles do make a significant difference. Unfortunately, they aren't being used but in a few other places outside of California yet. Sadly too, although not affecting global warming, those type of emissions are still a big factor in air quality. The methanol blends are like a two-edged sword with benefits in cost and savings in fossil fuel, but tough on engine performance and I really believe, judging from the cetane levels in these fuels that they are probably somewhat of a risk in higher numbers on other pollutants. Really a mess isn't it? Which brings me back to Barry's question above........Is there a point of no return? Have we reached it? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: MarkS Date: 24 Nov 00 - 11:27 AM Hey Spaw - If we ever have a Mudcat gathering bring your 66 Bird and I will bring my 68 GTO and we will see who gets quarter mile bragging rights on this forum. MarkS Oh Man, is this thread ever creeping |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: Grab Date: 24 Nov 00 - 03:19 PM I don't think there's ever going to be a point of no return, ie. a point from which the planet cannot ever recover. There's been times in the geological past where the entire polar icecaps have been melted, and other times where ice has damn near reached the equator in each direction, so it looks like we can take some pretty serious extremes in the long term. But it depends how long-term you want to think... The problem is more that it might affect species in the short term - particularly those of the human species who live in low-lying areas, and any species dependent on those areas for survival. And a rise in temperatures will change the composition of species in the sea too. Long-term, it'll work out OK - other species will evolve to cope with the conditions and fill in the gaps. And even medium-term, humans will survive - we'll just move inland a few miles. Trouble is, humans invented ethics, and we invented caring about things like that happening, and the human race effectively acting as a natural disaster on the scale of an asteroid strike or a volcanic holocaust isn't something we like to consider. Incidentally, read Pratchett's book about the Science of Discworld for a decent idea on that - cracking book for anyone with a passing interest in cosmology, evolution and science. More worrying is the ozone layer problem. Whilst heat and water levels are things we can easily deal with (by moving house, draining or air-conditioning), UV light isn't. It damages anything based on hydrocarbons, ie. our bodies, which is why UV is used to sterilise stuff and kill bacteria. Most countries are sorting that out (or have done already), and the CFCs which are the main culprits have mostly been stopped from entering the atmosphere any more. But it's going to take as much as 20 years for existing CFCs to disappear IIRC, and in the meantime the ozone layer will continue to deplete. If we had continued, it's perfectly possible that we could have sterilised all animal and vegetable life except for that living underground or underwater. Whilst the planet would still have recovered longterm - we'd have died, stopped producing CFCs, the CFCs would break down over time, the ozone layer would build back up again, and another whole new set of creatures would evolve - it wouldn't be particularly good news for us, or for our grandkids. Hate to say it guys, but we're all f*cked up. Part of me wants a drive with Spaw and feel that acceleration kick in. And the other part wants to go green and save the Earth. Granted, I cycle pretty much everywhere cos it's cheaper around town, but I still lust after a nice powerful car (in my case a 30s-style kit-car, the Marlin Cabrio). Argh! Save me from myself! Grab. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 24 Nov 00 - 04:09 PM This time last year I still had a Vincent. Now I'm stuck with the Trek. I know which I'd prefer, if I wasn't so damn politically correct.... Wouldn't mind a few more details about that book, Grab. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: catspaw49 Date: 24 Nov 00 - 04:16 PM that's a really good answer Grab, at least to me. I guess because I feel pretty much the same way. George Carlin has a long rambling bit in his inimitable and cynical style that covers it pretty much the same way. We're worried and concerned about us, or at the very most, the species of us. The planet doesn't give a damn.....its seen worse. That's basically the gist of the routine and I remember when I heard it thinking it was what comedy is about.....the ablility to make you laugh, cry, and squirm, all at the same time. Mudcat's own professional ecologist, Peter T., also made a comment a few months ago regarding the irony of flying all over the world to ecology conferences. Let's see, I have a definition of angst somewhere around here................. Spaw
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Nov 00 - 04:50 PM I didn't say it'd be better if the United States was beneath the sea, but that if it was beneath sea-level, like Holland. Or what I should have said really was, ity's a pity it's not just barely above sea-level, like a few other countries.
I think that if the USA faced the the prospect of being submerged within a few years it would pretty rapidly stop the pollution. And of course if it didn't the rising sea-level would have the same effect. And the USA really is the only single country that can individually seriously reduce the CO2 pollution, since it's driectly responsible for 24%, and rising. If the UK vanished off the face of the Earth, that'd be 2% gone.
Maybe of course, as MarkS says, it's all a mistake of course and global warming's nothing to do with anything we've done. The ciggy pushers used to say that about lung cancer didn't they? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: Ebbie Date: 24 Nov 00 - 07:39 PM Obviously I misunderstood you, McGrath- sorry. And now, I fully agree with you. If the US government understood it as a pragmatic issue, I would hope it would spring into action. That's why I say we need education. The problem is that there is such polarization, as it stands, that a consensus is not even close. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 24 Nov 00 - 08:05 PM McGrath Don't worry, if the world gets warmer (for whatever reason) the States is going to get wet. This again is from a US Government paper:
Climate change and the resulting rise in sea levels are likely to worsen threats to buildings, roads, powerlines and other infrastructures along the coast. Sea level rise is likely to cause the loss of some barrier beaches, islands, and wetlands, and worsen storm surges and flooding during storms. (There will of course be plenty of other effects too.) Another thought on your flatulence theory. I believe one or two of the old-style entertainers turned an honest penny igniting their farts, but then along came television and killed off the anal tradition. Or is it that we just can't turn out the methane-rich farts these days? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming From: Bill D Date: 24 Nov 00 - 08:38 PM "Bill D, "over-population" doesn't come into it. The UK has one of the highest population densities in the world - maybe only Japan is higher - and we manage, after a fashion. And world food capacity is more than enough for everyone - we're just wasteful about how we use it. " (barely able to sit at the PC for an hour tonight, as I am in craft show all weekend.)...but I DO disagree ....world population is THE issue that is driving many of the other problems...it is not the most urgent issue on the agenda right now, but it IS the keystone issue that IF it is not solved, will make solving the others moot...(the explanation is long and convoluted...I can't outline it all right not...but it is sort of like saying that your problem is that you are "up to your ass in alligators and being bitten on the butt", when the real problem is that someone has drained the swamp. The world will not support 23 trillion people, no matter HOW good out food distribution system is, and population density in "X" area is only a side issue, though one we DO need to look at....and if you REALLY believe that world food production is enough, you must first decide what you are willing to eat if it were all evened out. They said years ago that the oceans could feed us....try telling that to the fishermen in the Grand Banks! Or to the Japanese, who do like their seafood. |