PDA

View Full Version : CO2 passes 400ppm


W*GS
05-10-2013, 12:45 PM
Carbon Dioxide Passes 400 PPM Milestone, NOAA Finds (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/carbon-dioxide-passes-400ppm-milestone-for-first-time-in-modern-human-history-noaa-says-15975)

baja
05-10-2013, 01:00 PM
Become a vegetarian if you want to have an real and immediate impact.

houghtam
05-10-2013, 01:18 PM
“I would also point out that CO2, carbon dioxide, is not a pollutant in any normal definition of the term. … I am creating it as I talk to you. It’s in your Coca-Cola, you’re Dr. Pepper, your Perrier water. It is necessary for human life. It is odorless, colorless, tasteless, does not cause cancer, does not cause asthma.”

- Joe Barton

cutthemdown
05-10-2013, 01:31 PM
No wonder weed is getting better and better.

baja
05-10-2013, 01:34 PM
No wonder weed is getting better and better.


That's not it - it's that you have less and less brain cells to get stoned thus the pot seems more potent.

nyuk nyuk
05-10-2013, 02:00 PM
No wonder weed is getting better and better.

The cartels thank you.

I wonder if they play handpuppets with their headless victims?

nyuk nyuk
05-10-2013, 02:01 PM
CO2 is in the body and is part of naturally-occurring body processes. Has this been factored in in terms of the population explosion globally?

The mere existence of lots of stuff isn't necessarily bad.

baja
05-10-2013, 02:03 PM
The cartels thank you.

I wonder if they play handpuppets with their headless victims?

Who do you think runs the cartels?

nyuk nyuk
05-10-2013, 02:07 PM
Who do you think runs the cartels?

Mass murdering Mexican gangsters.

baja
05-10-2013, 02:11 PM
Mass murdering Mexican gangsters.

The people that clean their money are their bosses.

Rohirrim
05-10-2013, 02:15 PM
I can only hope it cuts off Imhofe's air.

W*GS
05-10-2013, 02:46 PM
CO2 is in the body and is part of naturally-occurring body processes. Has this been factored in in terms of the population explosion globally?

Too small to matter.

The mere existence of lots of stuff isn't necessarily bad.

Nor is it necessarily good. Drinking a cup of water won't hurt you. Drinking a couple gallons in short order very likely will.

nyuk nyuk
05-10-2013, 03:16 PM
The people that clean their money are their bosses.

What does this tangent have anything to do with anything?

nyuk nyuk
05-10-2013, 03:17 PM
Too small to matter.

Nor is it necessarily good. Drinking a cup of water won't hurt you. Drinking a couple gallons in short order very likely will.

Yes, love, so what's the concern with CO2? I don't think the population explosion produces anything too small to matter, but I'm admittedly not familiar with science on CO2. Plants process the stuff, you know. Deforestation may be also in play with that.

baja
05-10-2013, 03:20 PM
What does this tangent have anything to do with anything?


I has everything to do with everything. It creates your reality.

cutthemdown
05-10-2013, 03:54 PM
The cartels thank you.

I wonder if they play handpuppets with their headless victims?

I get my weed from a hippy bass player I know that grows it himself. How does that help the cartels?

cutthemdown
05-10-2013, 03:55 PM
That's not it - it's that you have less and less brain cells to get stoned thus the pot seems more potent.

Catarac Kush called and said hello. I'd say a tad better then the cheap mexican weed of the 80's.

nyuk nyuk
05-10-2013, 04:00 PM
I get my weed from a hippy bass player I know that grows it himself. How does that help the cartels?

How'd I know you say this? You see, not one pot smoker I have ever talked to says he gets his weed from the cartels. It's always good Americans with families. Quite amazing considering how many endless tons of the stuff keep coming over here.

nyuk nyuk
05-10-2013, 04:01 PM
Catarac Kush called and said hello. I'd say a tad better then the cheap mexican weed of the 80's.

Whups, what did I just say about Mexican weed?

Arkie
05-10-2013, 04:27 PM
The cartels thank you.

I wonder if they play handpuppets with their headless victims?

Imagine all the violence that could be avoided if we legalized weed. It's more harmless than alcohol.

W*GS
05-10-2013, 04:31 PM
Yes, love, so what's the concern with CO2?

As a species, we've never experienced this level of CO2, which is causing considerable changes in the climate system. The impacts of those changes are likely to be unpleasant (at best) and dangerous to us and the biosphere.

I don't think the population explosion produces anything too small to matter, but I'm admittedly not familiar with science on CO2.

I recommend doing some research, then.

Plants process the stuff, you know. Deforestation may be also in play with that.

Yes, deforestation does play a role. Our burning of fossil fuels is of much greater significance.

Requiem
05-10-2013, 04:59 PM
That's not it - it's that you have less and less brain cells to get stoned thus the pot seems more potent.

Not at all.

El Minion
05-10-2013, 05:15 PM
No worries, Jesus will save us when he returns, for the second time no less, riding on a dinosaur to save us. Yay science! :oyvey:

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/09/creationismtest.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg

Requiem
05-10-2013, 05:42 PM
What is your carbon footprint? (http://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/index.htm#)

Mine is 9.5 Tons of CO2 a year. Average in USA per person is 27. Average person in the world is 5.5.

Are you doing your part?

orinjkrush
05-10-2013, 06:11 PM
in related news, on this date in 1752, Benjamin Franklin begins man's systematic destruction of the troposphere with his testing of the lightening rod. Criminal proceedings in the Hague are pending.

baja
05-10-2013, 06:33 PM
Catarac Kush called and said hello. I'd say a tad better then the cheap mexican weed of the 80's.


No doubt...

W*GS
05-10-2013, 06:43 PM
This is an important fact and you guys would rather talk about stoner bull****.

GTFU.

baja
05-10-2013, 06:55 PM
This is an important fact and you guys would rather talk about stoner bull****.

GTFU.

good herb needs tons of CO2 to flourish so we are on topic.....

Arkie
05-10-2013, 10:06 PM
That's not it - it's that you have less and less brain cells to get stoned thus the pot seems more potent.

It's actually less potent because it's growing faster at higher CO2 levels, but the bigger buds make up for it.

cutthemdown
05-11-2013, 04:30 AM
What is your carbon footprint? (http://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/index.htm#)

Mine is 9.5 Tons of CO2 a year. Average in USA per person is 27. Average person in the world is 5.5.

Are you doing your part?

Your basement is super green bro.

cutthemdown
05-11-2013, 04:34 AM
What is your carbon footprint? (http://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/index.htm#)

Mine is 9.5 Tons of CO2 a year. Average in USA per person is 27. Average person in the world is 5.5.

Are you doing your part?

Mine was only 25. I am 2 tons under the avg without lifting a finger to even try. I always come out above avg without trying. :~ohyah!:

baja
05-11-2013, 07:00 AM
14 for me

houghtam
05-11-2013, 07:19 AM
For some reason it won't work on a mobile, but I would hope I'm below the average. Difficult with two young children, but we do cloth diapers, breastfeed, grow about 2/3 of our own vegetables. Own one car, rarely eat out. I imagine living in the US alone probably starts you out at 10.

Arkie
05-11-2013, 09:29 AM
The carbon footprint is such a guilt trip. I can't even get it below 12 no matter how environmentally friendly I answer the questions. It must be impossible for Americans to drop down to the world average regardless lifestyle.

houghtam
05-11-2013, 09:51 AM
The carbon footprint is such a guilt trip. I can't even get it below 12 no matter how environmentally friendly I answer the questions. It must be impossible for Americans to drop down to the world average regardless lifestyle.

That was kind of what I was getting at with my comment. I would imagine that 90%+ of the population in the US lives in areas where easy access to healthy food doesn't exist, so you have to factor in the environmental costs of traveling even a mile or two to get to the grocery store or whatever. Even if you try your hardest, unless you grow your own food, walk or bike everywhere, recycle, and basically subsist, you're automatically affecting the environment more just by where you live.

El Minion
05-11-2013, 10:02 AM
Got mine @ 13, home energy use is the bulk of my carbon footprint @ 11. If I lived in a larger community of +5 I could get down to 10, if I did no traveling then it gets down to 8.

To get it to <5, all I need to do additionally is don't drive, move to a single bedroom home, reduce hot water use, no meat, eat organic, and compost. Realistically though I can probably get down to 11 by doing the hot water, diet and composting.

Meck77
05-11-2013, 12:08 PM
Al Gore's carbon foot print is more than all the posters on the thread. Talk about a ****ing hypocrite. He's now pushing $200,000,000 in personal net worth. Move over romney!

W*GS
05-11-2013, 12:38 PM
Al Gore's carbon foot print is more than all the posters on the thread. Talk about a ****ing hypocrite. He's now pushing $200,000,000 in personal net worth. Move over romney!

Yep, no Al Gore, no AGW.

Whew.

baja
05-11-2013, 12:45 PM
The carbon footprint is such a guilt trip. I can't even get it below 12 no matter how environmentally friendly I answer the questions. It must be impossible for Americans to drop down to the world average regardless lifestyle.

You gotta say you are from Mississippi and you make your shoes out of old car tires.

Meck77
05-11-2013, 01:25 PM
Yep, no Al Gore, no AGW.

Whew.

The point is all this BS about changing your ****ing light bulbs to save the planet yet the biggest "advocate" for global warming by percentage is the top percentile of energy whores on the planet.

He didn't give a rats ass about global warming or America for that matter. For crying out loud he cashed out to Al Jazeera!

Requiem
05-11-2013, 02:04 PM
Scoring under 15 is pretty good. It is going to be harder to do if you own a home, have a family, etc. -- but individually (if you do the assessment) it really isn't hard to meet those goals. Unless you are like a co-worker of mine who fires up her Suburban to drive to work even though she lives 3 blocks from the office. Loooool.

houghtam
05-11-2013, 02:14 PM
Scoring under 15 is pretty good. It is going to be harder to do if you own a home, have a family, etc. -- but individually (if you do the assessment) it really isn't hard to meet those goals. Unless you are like a co-worker of mine who fires up her Suburban to drive to work even though she lives 3 blocks from the office. Loooool.

The sad thing is that you don't need to be a flaming liberal to do most of the stuff that makes a difference (no matter how small) because a lot of it is common sense.

Why wouldn't you want to grow your own food (if you have the room or ability)? It's certainly not less healthy than what you get at the store, and the case can easily be made that its better for you.

Why wouldn't you walk to work or take the stairs when you can?

If you have kids, why wouldn't you want to save about 75% on diapers by just using cloth?

Because it is easier. Although I'm sure you know many people, as do I, some here on this forum who actually go out of their way to do things that aren't environmentally friendly, just to piss off liberals. My brother drives a Hummer for that reason alone...then complains about gas prices and getting a blistering 6 wind-aided miles to the gallon.

nyuk nyuk
05-11-2013, 02:16 PM
Al Gore's carbon foot print is more than all the posters on the thread. Talk about a ****ing hypocrite. He's now pushing $200,000,000 in personal net worth. Move over romney!

Butthead!

You're only an out of touch silver spooner if you're a Republican!

Gawd, get with it.

nyuk nyuk
05-11-2013, 02:19 PM
If you have kids, why wouldn't you want to save about 75% on diapers by just using cloth?

Maybe you've never dealt with cloth diapers?

Requiem
05-11-2013, 02:22 PM
The sad thing is that you don't need to be a flaming liberal to do most of the stuff that makes a difference (no matter how small) because a lot of it is common sense.

Why wouldn't you want to grow your own food (if you have the room or ability)? It's certainly not less healthy than what you get at the store, and the case can easily be made that its better for you.

Why wouldn't you walk to work or take the stairs when you can?

If you have kids, why wouldn't you want to save about 75% on diapers by just using cloth?

Because it is easier. Although I'm sure you know many people, as do I, some here on this forum who actually go out of their way to do things that aren't environmentally friendly, just to piss off liberals. My brother drives a Hummer for that reason alone...then complains about gas prices and getting a blistering 6 wind-aided miles to the gallon.

Agreed. People will do what is easiest and most convenient for them. We want it quick (me first society) and we want it now!

People aren't willing to put in the time or effort it takes to do some of these things. When it comes to growing your own produce, most people don't have a clue. I was fortunate enough to come from a lineage of farmers and people who had to be self-sustaining in order to survive. Spending afternoons and weekends tilling gardens, planting seeds and learning about that sort of thing was common for me growing up. Nowadays, parents just flip there kid an iPad and pacify them with technology. Very few people are learning those skills today. I don't find it hard at all, it can be a challenge, but it's fun and relaxing. Nothing is more satisfying than being able to pick fresh things you grew and make a meal out of them.

And yeah, LOL @ the Hummer thing. I can't believe people would even buy those vehicles.

houghtam
05-11-2013, 02:30 PM
Maybe you've never dealt with cloth diapers?

I have been. For three years. Nothing to be scared of, and you can make your own.

baja
05-11-2013, 02:35 PM
I have been. For three years. Nothing to be scared of, and you can make your own.

You could be a real man and lick those bottoms clean like in the old days.

houghtam
05-11-2013, 02:42 PM
You could be a real man and lick those bottoms clean like in the old days.

That's what hose is for.

Hose the kids and their diapers off, over the garden, tada! Fertilizer!

Kidding!

cutthemdown
05-11-2013, 02:48 PM
I'm going to try and push my carbon footprint to 30! This whole app is a joke though and you all know it right? It's just a way to get people to donate money to supposedly offset your footprint. You know like Al Gore did. Don't people realize global warming and carbon footprint is just a new industry trying to make money off you?

How many of you really think co2 will ever drop in your lifetime? It will take technology far beyond electric cars and solar energy. I doubt electric cars will even be that green once people realize the batterys don't last as long as they say they will. That means you need a new battery and they take a lot of co2 to produce.

houghtam
05-11-2013, 02:52 PM
I'm going to try and push my carbon footprint to 30! This whole app is a joke though and you all know it right? It's just a way to get people to donate money to supposedly offset your footprint. You know like Al Gore did. Don't people realize global warming and carbon footprint is just a new industry trying to make money off you?

How many of you really think co2 will ever drop in your lifetime? It will take technology far beyond electric cars and solar energy. I doubt electric cars will even be that green once people realize the batterys don't last as long as they say they will. That means you need a new battery and they take a lot of co2 to produce.

You sound like my brother. Even if it were a hoax, you still save money by doing small, common sense things that, oh look at that, ALSO happen to reduce CO2.

I wouldn't expect you, the "citizens will save the police" guy, to understand it. Enjoy filling up your tank 3 times a week for $150 a pop.

cutthemdown
05-11-2013, 02:53 PM
The sad thing is that you don't need to be a flaming liberal to do most of the stuff that makes a difference (no matter how small) because a lot of it is common sense.

Why wouldn't you want to grow your own food (if you have the room or ability)? It's certainly not less healthy than what you get at the store, and the case can easily be made that its better for you.

Why wouldn't you walk to work or take the stairs when you can?

If you have kids, why wouldn't you want to save about 75% on diapers by just using cloth?

Because it is easier. Although I'm sure you know many people, as do I, some here on this forum who actually go out of their way to do things that aren't environmentally friendly, just to piss off liberals. My brother drives a Hummer for that reason alone...then complains about gas prices and getting a blistering 6 wind-aided miles to the gallon.


Can we exchange you for your brother on the board?

cutthemdown
05-11-2013, 02:59 PM
People with kids kill the carbon footprint. They could go on to be co2 spewing little monsters. Or I guess one might make a huge discovery on how to turn dead fetuses into clean burning fuel, but i doubt it Houghtam. At least you get to hand down your liberal mantra to be carried on though. That has to count for somthing.

cutthemdown
05-11-2013, 03:00 PM
Al Gore is a flipping politician and a businessman. I am amazed how much he made off his global warming angle. What a haul! Smart man I give him props!

W*GS
05-11-2013, 03:17 PM
The point is all this BS about changing your ****ing light bulbs to save the planet yet the biggest "advocate" for global warming by percentage is the top percentile of energy whores on the planet.

He didn't give a rats ass about global warming or America for that matter. For crying out loud he cashed out to Al Jazeera!

So?

What Al Gore does or doesn't do changes not one thing.

houghtam
05-11-2013, 03:36 PM
So?

What Al Gore does or doesn't do changes not one thing.

It would be like criticizing Marty Schottenheimer for saying the Chiefs are a **** franchise. Sure, he contributed to it and profited from it, but it doesn't change the fact that they're a **** franchise.

Fedaykin
05-11-2013, 03:45 PM
In related news, electric cars are starting to come into their own.

Tesla motors showing industry how it's done (with American manufacturing even).

Their sedan (the model S) has sports car power @ 100mpg equivalent and a 300 mile range. And with a reasonable recharge time with the supercharger network (150mi range in 30 minutes)

And it outsells Audi, Mercedes, BMW, and Lexus combined. And is making profit hand over fist ($15m profit with a 25% gross profit margin, which is MASSIVE for the auto industry).

Still a bit on the pricy side ($70-90k) but that's the plan -- to target the luxury market first to fund continued development. To that end, the cars come with a ton of luxury features that typically bring even a luxury petrol car into that same price range depending on options (engine size, electronics, etc.). Hence the ass kicking they are delivering the typical luxury makers.

And, Tesla has already made huge strides in reducing costs (their first production model in 2009 was in the $120k range). Their target is a $30,000 mainstream (rather than luxury) sedan by 2016. Probably by reducing the power to "normal sedan" level instead of sports car levels and stripping out other high end targeted features.

Once you add in the "fuel" cost being $500/year instead of $2,000/year, that $30,000 car would easily be cost competitive even with small, low power petrol sedans.

Considering electric cars have only been in serious development for a little over a decade and are still a very immature technology, they are doing quite smashingly in the cost field.

Fedaykin
05-11-2013, 03:59 PM
Solar panels to heat home and charge car = win both for the environment and for your pocket book.

Obviously solar is not sufficient on it's own and would need to be supplemented with non weather depending energy, but for those that live in reasonably sunny areas it's already feasible. Of course, people like cutlet won't grok because they don't understand up front vs long term costs, but that's their loss.

Meck77
05-11-2013, 04:11 PM
People with kids kill the carbon footprint..

Good point. Wags is a father yet he's bitching about global warming. The responsible thing to do if someone was really concerned about Global warming is don't have any kids.

Instead he rants and raves about what others should be doing.

W*GS
05-11-2013, 04:18 PM
Good point. Wags is a father yet he's b****ing about global warming. The responsible thing to do if someone was really concerned about Global warming is don't have any kids.

Instead he rants and raves about what others should be doing.

What quotes can you offer that support this claim of my behavior?

Requiem
05-11-2013, 04:34 PM
I'm going to try and push my carbon footprint to 30! This whole app is a joke though and you all know it right? It's just a way to get people to donate money to supposedly offset your footprint. You know like Al Gore did. Don't people realize global warming and carbon footprint is just a new industry trying to make money off you?

How many of you really think co2 will ever drop in your lifetime? It will take technology far beyond electric cars and solar energy. I doubt electric cars will even be that green once people realize the batterys don't last as long as they say they will. That means you need a new battery and they take a lot of co2 to produce.

What is more environmental friendly? Tube, hybrid or solid state amps?

You get penalized 5 carbon footprint points if you turn them up to 11.

cutthemdown
05-11-2013, 04:42 PM
bands probably put out more co2 with all the things they burn. Cigars, weed, ciggs, drinking. How much co2 goes into 1 bottle of whiskey or a case of beer?

cutthemdown
05-11-2013, 04:44 PM
What quotes can you offer that support this claim of my behavior?

You once told me to go **** myself. I have no idea how much co2 that would release but it wouldn't be pretty.

houghtam
05-11-2013, 04:45 PM
We can protect ourselves unless the govt takes our AR's away. Someday we may have 100 terrorists fan out with assault rifles like what happened in India. Local police would need all the help they can get.

LOL LOL LOL

cutthemdown
05-11-2013, 04:51 PM
I stand by the statement we could need our AR's someday because the govt will fail to be there. You though would be hiding under your brother Hummer while he protected the family. But hey you get to stay a pacifist. :)

cutthemdown
05-11-2013, 04:52 PM
I'm glad you like that one Houghtam I want you to enjoy yourself. LOL!

Fedaykin
05-11-2013, 04:52 PM
bands probably put out more co2 with all the things they burn. Cigars, weed, ciggs, drinking. How much co2 goes into 1 bottle of whiskey or a case of beer?

.. plant based products are 100% carbon neutral. Unless the plant material has been buried for long, long time.

Arkie
05-11-2013, 08:08 PM
This is only if you've taken steps to heat and cool your home efficiently wherever possible, installed efficient lighting everywhere possible, use ENERGY STAR appliances and electronics and always unplug equipment not in use, don't drive, don't fly, never eat meat, only eat organic food, recycle all your materials, and compost all your food scraps and yard trimmings whenever possible.

You have to live in one of these States to beat the world average.

Idaho 3.4
Vermont 3.4
Washington 4.6
Oregon 4.7
Califonia 5.1


Obviously, everybody below needs to move to Idaho to save the environment.

South Carolina 6.1
New Jersey 6.3
New Hampshire 6.6
South Dakota 7.2
Maine 7.5
New York 7.5
Louisiana 7.6
Arizona 7.9
North Carolina 7.9
Arkansas 8.1
Connecticut 8.1
Mississippi 8.1
Alabama 8.2
Virginia 8.4
Georgia 8.5
Florida 8.6
Rhode Island 8.6
Texas 8.9
Tennessee 9.1
Illinois 9.2
D.C. 9.4
Maryland 9.4
Hawaii 9.7
Pennsylvania 9.7
Massachusettes 9.8
Alaska 10
Montana 10
Nebraska 10
Oklahoma 10
Kansas 11
Michigan 11
Minnesota 11
Nevada 11
Wisconsin 11
Delaware 12
Missouri 12
Ohio 12
West Virginia 12
Colorado 13
Iowa 13
Kentucky 13
Utah 13
Indiana 14
New Mexico 14
North Dakota 14
Wyoming 14

cutthemdown
05-12-2013, 04:43 AM
It's cold in wyoming the have no choice but to burn fossil fuels lol. It's easy to say turn the heat down from sunny calif.

baja
05-12-2013, 06:02 AM
It's cold in wyoming the have no choice but to burn fossil fuels lol. It's easy to say turn the heat down from sunny calif.

Ever been to Idaho ? Vermont?

Arkie
05-14-2013, 11:27 AM
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=32312&stc=1&d=1368215145

http://www.paulchefurka.ca/World%20Population.JPG


How do we realistically address this problem? The CO2 graph is the same as the population graph over the last 2000 years.

The average person has a carbon footprint of 5.5 and increasing as the developing world catches up to our own standard of living. Americans couldn't even return to those levels if we tried. It seems impossible to reduce CO2 from human behavior.

baja
05-14-2013, 11:35 AM
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=32312&stc=1&d=1368215145

http://www.paulchefurka.ca/World%20Population.JPG


How do we realistically address this problem? The CO2 graph is the same as the population graph over the last 2000 years.

The average person has a carbon footprint of 5.5 and increasing as the developing world catches up to our own standard of living. Americans couldn't even return to those levels if we tried. It seems impossible to reduce CO2 from human behavior.


This growth is 100% based on petroleum which is a limited resource. As oil is used up the population will fall.

W*GS
05-14-2013, 11:47 AM
How do we realistically address this problem?

Price carbon and let the market respond.

Rohirrim
05-14-2013, 12:00 PM
Price carbon and let the market respond.

Or continue as we are and the CO2 problem takes care of the population problem? Win/win. ;D

BroncoBeavis
05-14-2013, 12:33 PM
Price carbon and let the market <s>respond</s> move to China or India where they won't price carbon.

FIFY LOL

BroncoBeavis
05-14-2013, 12:55 PM
This growth is 100% based on petroleum which is a limited resource. As oil is used up the population will fall.

I think it's pretty clear at this point, with the huge new reserve estimates in North America alone that the population will decline significantly long before the oil runs out.

Population collapse, and the transition to that new world is humanity's biggest (known) challenge coming over the next century. That new reality will have far more impact on CO2 concentrations than any byzantine scheme our government masters could ever imagineer.

Rohirrim
05-14-2013, 01:19 PM
I think it's pretty clear at this point, with the huge new reserve estimates in North America alone that the population will decline significantly long before the oil runs out.

Population collapse, and the transition to that new world is humanity's biggest (known) challenge coming over the next century. That new reality will have far more impact on CO2 concentrations than any byzantine scheme our government masters could ever imagineer.

Ask Baja. It's the Club of Rome...

http://www.shtfplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/limitsofgrowth.jpg

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/peak-civilization-mit-research-team-predicts-global-economic-collapse-and-precipitous-population-decline_04052012

W*GS
05-14-2013, 03:19 PM
I love the righties.

Basically **** the Planet for a Buck.

Same lack of thinking as these guys:

http://richardwiseman.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/petri_dish_13_october_2005.jpg

BroncoBeavis
05-14-2013, 03:28 PM
I love the righties.

Basically **** the Planet for a Buck.

No matter what we do our emissions will become a drop in the bucket compared to China and India in a very short period of time.

Charging our own industry while watching theirs operate outside of our standards with impunity only furthers their interest and harms ours.

Ironic thing is our production technology is generally much cleaner than theirs. Any incentive we give to further push industrial production to Asia hurts more than it helps.

When it comes to livelihoods and jobs you have to be at least somewhat pragmatic about this stuff. Utopia doesn't exist, and global CO2 emissions aren't going to decline by order of federal legislation.

Arkie
05-14-2013, 04:22 PM
Price carbon and let the market respond.

What would be the price, and how would it be enforced globally?

W*GS
05-14-2013, 04:43 PM
No matter what we do our emissions will become a drop in the bucket compared to China and India in a very short period of time.

Charging our own industry while watching theirs operate outside of our standards with impunity only furthers their interest and harms ours.

Ironic thing is our production technology is generally much cleaner than theirs. Any incentive we give to further push industrial production to Asia hurts more than it helps.

When it comes to livelihoods and jobs you have to be at least somewhat pragmatic about this stuff. Utopia doesn't exist, and global CO2 emissions aren't going to decline by order of federal legislation.

This is a global problem and will require a global solution.

You should be pissed that the emissions of others are going to continue to impact us, and get worse.

What are you doing about it? Nothing. Why?

If the Chinese were flinging their **** over the Pacific at us, you'd react. Instead, you're just throwing up your hands and doing nothing.

Pathetic.

W*GS
05-14-2013, 04:44 PM
What would be the price, and how would it be enforced globally?

The price will be whatever it needs to be to absorb the costs of our carbon emissions.

Like I told Beavis, this is a global problem and will require a global solution.

Doing nothing while blaming the Chinese and Indians for our inaction is the pussy maneuver.

BroncoBeavis
05-15-2013, 04:35 AM
The price will be whatever it needs to be to absorb the costs of our carbon emissions.

Like I told Beavis, this is a global problem and will require a global solution.

Doing nothing while blaming the Chinese and Indians for our inaction is the p***Y maneuver.

"Global solution.". Got it. Well as soon as you kids get China and India to agree to cap carbon emissions, you let us know. Our emissions haven't been lower in decades, but theirs keep exploding. And they're not going to stop it.

W*GS
05-15-2013, 04:57 AM
"Global solution.". Got it. Well as soon as you kids get China and India to agree to cap carbon emissions, you let us know. Our emissions haven't been lower in decades, but theirs keep exploding. And they're not going to stop it.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3847462&postcount=80

BroncoBeavis
05-15-2013, 07:32 AM
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3847462&postcount=80

I know I know. You must 'do something' even if to completely trivial effect and at whatever cost demanded. Because doing nothing is always worse than Doing Something (moronic)

Even after example after example spills out establishing that many of the ardent climate doomsdayers have really no clue what they're talking about.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions

As has been argued over and over again, many are letting the hypothesis drive the policy (ironically in the name of 'science'). And in a system so complex they can't even begin to make an accurate prediction of what happens this decade, let alone this century.

W*GS
05-15-2013, 08:19 AM
I know I know. You must 'do something' even if to completely trivial effect and at whatever cost demanded. Because doing nothing is always worse than Doing Something (moronic)

"Whatever cost"? Nope. Typical strawman.

Even after example after example spills out establishing that many of the ardent climate doomsdayers have really no clue what they're talking about.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions

As has been argued over and over again, many are letting the hypothesis drive the policy (ironically in the name of 'science'). And in a system so complex they can't even begin to make an accurate prediction of what happens this decade, let alone this century.

Wrong. You don't even know the relevance of climate sensitivity. Put it this way - it's not policy relevant.

http://skepticalscience.com/climate-best-to-worst-case-scenarios.html

You guys still don't get it:

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/shakun_marcott_hadcrut4_a1b_eng.png

baja
05-15-2013, 09:16 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXPWco_0ivo

W*GS
05-15-2013, 09:19 AM
Stick your chemtrails up your arse, baja.

You just can't but **** on just about every thread with your paranoia and conspiracy crap.

Bronco Yoda
05-15-2013, 10:07 AM
The fam scores 110. I'm guessing that's not super green.

I've started holding in my farts on the weekends. That should count for something.

Pony Boy
05-15-2013, 10:08 AM
I'm going to try and push my carbon footprint to 30! This whole app is a joke though and you all know it right? It's just a way to get people to donate money to supposedly offset your footprint. You know like Al Gore did. Don't people realize global warming and carbon footprint is just a new industry trying to make money off you?

How many of you really think co2 will ever drop in your lifetime? It will take technology far beyond electric cars and solar energy. I doubt electric cars will even be that green once people realize the batterys don't last as long as they say they will. That means you need a new battery and they take a lot of co2 to produce.

It's impossible to determine if electric vehicles pollute less than internal combustion engine vehicles without considering where they are to be driven and what source of electricity is used to generate power. An electric car that is charged with energy from hydroelectric power, will produce very little pollution, while one charged with energy from a source, like coal or oil, may produce more pollution than an internal combustion engine car.

I don't worry too much about it, I drive an F-250 diesel and blow my cigar smoke out the window while driving. My wife drives a Cadillac Escalade Platinum that on a good day gets 14 mpg and we always take two vehicles when we go somewhere because she won't let me light a stogie in her car.

Fedaykin
05-15-2013, 10:19 AM
It's impossible to determine if electric vehicles pollute less than internal combustion engine vehicles without considering where they are to be driven and what source of electricity is used to generate power. An electric car that is charged with energy from hydroelectric power, will produce very little pollution, while one charged with energy from a source, like coal or oil, may produce more pollution than an internal combustion engine car.


No, because

a.) Producing electricity, even in a coal plant, is far more efficient than producing energy in an internal combustion engine. This is pretty much entirely about gains from scale and using more efficient ways to capture thermal energy that results from burning fossil fuels

b.) Electric cars are more efficient per unit of energy than internal combustion cars, even after the energy is produced.

This is why electric cars have an "MPG equivalent" rating. Tesla is getting around ~100MPG equivalent ratings producing as much or more torque/horsepower as ICE's getting 15 MPG. Once they scale down out of the luxury market, they will likely be getting closer to 200MPG equivalents.

Pony Boy
05-15-2013, 10:30 AM
No, because

a.) Producing electricity, even in a coal plant, is far more efficient than producing energy in an internal combustion engine. This is pretty much entirely about gains from scale and using more efficient ways to capture thermal energy that results from burning fossil fuels

b.) Electric cars are more efficient per unit of energy than internal combustion cars, even after the energy is produced.

This is why electric cars have an "MPG equivalent" rating. Tesla is getting around ~100MPG equivalent ratings producing as much or more torque/horsepower as ICE's getting 15 MPG. Once they scale down out of the luxury market, they will likely be getting closer to 200MPG equivalents.

How Green Are Electric Cars? Depends on Where You Plug In

The U.C.S. report, which takes into account the full cycle of energy production, often called a well-to-wheels analysis, demonstrates that in areas where the electric utility relies on natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric or renewable sources to power its generators, the potential for electric cars and plug-in hybrids to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is great. But where generators are powered by burning a high percentage of coal, electric cars may not be even as good as the latest gasoline models — and far short of the thriftiest hybrids.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/automobiles/how-green-are-electric-cars-depends-on-where-you-plug-in.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

BroncoBeavis
05-15-2013, 10:37 AM
No, because

a.) Producing electricity, even in a coal plant, is far more efficient than producing energy in an internal combustion engine. This is pretty much entirely about gains from scale and using more efficient ways to capture thermal energy that results from burning fossil fuels

That's theoretically true, if you're talking about instantly using the energy as it's generated. Once you start dealing with transmission and storage losses (as you do in a transportation scenario) efficiency suffers a lot. And once you start looking at the environmental costs of production (like for the massive heavy-metal battery banks) the scales pretty much tip against the EV (so long as you compare it to a similarly sized and priced gas or diesel equivalent)

BroncoBeavis
05-15-2013, 10:40 AM
"Whatever cost"? Nope. Typical strawman.



Wrong. You don't even know the relevance of climate sensitivity. Put it this way - it's not policy relevant.

http://skepticalscience.com/climate-best-to-worst-case-scenarios.html

You guys still don't get it:

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/shakun_marcott_hadcrut4_a1b_eng.png

Computer Models are Awesome. Until they aren't.

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/print-edition/20130330_STC334_1.png

baja
05-15-2013, 11:14 AM
Stick your chemtrails up your arse, baja.

You just can't but **** on just about every thread with your paranoia and conspiracy crap.

But waggsy cloud seeding is the answer to global warming.

Watch the video before you condem.

Fedaykin
05-15-2013, 11:23 AM
That's theoretically true, if you're talking about instantly using the energy as it's generated. Once you start dealing with transmission and storage losses (as you do in a transportation scenario) efficiency suffers a lot. And once you start looking at the environmental costs of production (like for the massive heavy-metal battery banks) the scales pretty much tip against the EV (so long as you compare it to a similarly sized and priced gas or diesel equivalent)

Your statement has no basis in fact, even according to the lovely source Pony Boy has (which doesn't say what he's claiming).

The reality is (again even Pony Boy's source says this) that all other things being equals (size/utility of vehicle) even an EV powered by the dirtiest coal based elec will be less polluting. An EV powered by really dirty coal isn't better than the most efficient (read tiny gutless sub compact) car, but that's apples-to-oranges.

And, EV tech (particuarly batteries) are still in its infancy. Energy density is going up, usability problems (i.e. recharge time) are getting better, etc.

Petrol cars have had over a century to mature. EVs have only been seriously worked on for a little over a decade.

Fedaykin
05-15-2013, 11:25 AM
How Green Are Electric Cars? Depends on Where You Plug In

The U.C.S. report, which takes into account the full cycle of energy production, often called a well-to-wheels analysis, demonstrates that in areas where the electric utility relies on natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric or renewable sources to power its generators, the potential for electric cars and plug-in hybrids to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is great. But where generators are powered by burning a high percentage of coal, electric cars may not be even as good as the latest gasoline models — and far short of the thriftiest hybrids.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/automobiles/how-green-are-electric-cars-depends-on-where-you-plug-in.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

As that article points out, your statement is only true if you compare the absolute worst EV to the most efficient ICE. All other things being equal (size of car, etc.) EVs are always better -- even according to your article.

W*GS
05-15-2013, 11:56 AM
But waggsy cloud seeding is the answer to global warming.

Watch the video before you condem.

Geoengineering isn't the solution.

W*GS
05-15-2013, 11:59 AM
Computer Models are Awesome. Until they aren't.

Sigh.

http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ed/bloguploads/hiatus.gif

The animation shows observations and two simulations with a climate model which only vary in their particular realisation of the weather, i.e. chaotic variability. A previous post has described how different realisations can produce very different outcomes for regional climates. However, the animation shows how global temperatures can evolve differently over the course of a century. For example, the blue simulation matches the observed trend over the most recent decade but warms more than the red simulation up to 2050. This demonstrates that a temporary slowdown in global surface warming is not inconsistent with future warming projections.

BroncoBeavis
05-15-2013, 01:22 PM
Sigh.

http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ed/bloguploads/hiatus.gif

The animation shows observations and two simulations with a climate model which only vary in their particular realisation of the weather, i.e. chaotic variability. A previous post has described how different realisations can produce very different outcomes for regional climates. However, the animation shows how global temperatures can evolve differently over the course of a century. For example, the blue simulation matches the observed trend over the most recent decade but warms more than the red simulation up to 2050. This demonstrates that a temporary slowdown in global surface warming is not inconsistent with future warming projections.

Neato. More simulations.

baja
05-15-2013, 04:12 PM
Geoengineering isn't the solution.

well at least we agree on that.

mhgaffney
05-15-2013, 05:10 PM
Stick your chemtrails up your arse, baja.

You just can't but **** on just about every thread with your paranoia and conspiracy crap.

You stupid moron.

In 1997 Edward Teller proposed injecting "sunlight scattering particles into the stratosphere" to mitigate climate change.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6791

Teller coauthored a paper on the issue - and wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal.

Here's the seminal paper that may have "inspired" the secret program:
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira%20downloads/Teller_etal_LLNL231636_1997.pdf

Arkie
05-15-2013, 05:15 PM
Geoengineering isn't the solution.

What's the solution? Do you believe we can realistically price carbon to maintain the current levels let alone reduce them? The 5.5 average carbon footprint for 7 billion people would have to be reduced to 4.3 for 9 billion people by 2050 just to maintain our high levels. We are already past the point of no return if that's the only solution. There may not be a realistic solution besides adapting to climate change or leaving the planet.

baja
05-15-2013, 05:59 PM
What's the solution? Do you believe we can realistically price carbon to maintain the current levels let alone reduce them? The 5.5 average carbon footprint for 7 billion people would have to be reduced to 4.3 for 9 billion people by 2050 just to maintain our high levels. We are already past the point of no return if that's the only solution. There may not be a realistic solution besides adapting to climate change or leaving the planet.


There will be a mass reduction of population. Some entity with great power will decide it is better to sacrifice 80% of the world population in order to save the remaining 20%. Pandemic, world war, famine, infertility and ETC. are among the tools to be used.

W*GS
05-15-2013, 06:58 PM
Neato. More simulations.

The claim that the models are **** is just plain wrong.

W*GS
05-15-2013, 07:01 PM
What's the solution? Do you believe we can realistically price carbon to maintain the current levels let alone reduce them?

I do. What is it about pricing carbon that spells doom for us?

There may not be a realistic solution besides adapting to climate change or leaving the planet.

Wouldn't it be a bitch to rely only on adaptation and have it ending up more expensive that mitigation...

Leaving the planet? To where? How?

Pricing carbon is impossible to deal with, but we'll be saved by Captain Kirk and the NCC-1701. Got it.

W*GS
05-15-2013, 07:07 PM
You stupid moron.

You know stupid and you're definitely a moron.

In 1997 Edward Teller proposed injecting "sunlight scattering particles into the stratosphere" to mitigate climate change.

Teller wasn't the father of SRM via stratospheric aerosols, dick.

When you step in it, gaffe, you sink in to the point that the flow of fecal matter into your mouth exceeds the flow coming out.

Arkie
05-16-2013, 10:43 AM
I do. What is it about pricing carbon that spells doom for us?

I didn't say it would spell doom. I said it's unrealistic.


Wouldn't it be a b**** to rely only on adaptation and have it ending up more expensive that mitigation...


We don't have the money, but I doubt it's more expensive than pricing carbon high enough to shut down entire industries though. The auto industry and the meat industry are a couple of them that need to go away if we're to reduce carbon as the world population grows.

cutthemdown
05-16-2013, 10:56 AM
Geoengineering is going to have to be part of th solution at some point.....If there is a solution. Best best probably is just to adapt better then other countries. If you adapt better USA always comes out on top.

Wiggs can't show any evidence however that any liberal policies will ever cool the earth or lower co2. We can't leave the Earth yet like one person says all we can do is identify areas of crop management, water control, etc where we can make advancements to combat the effects of climate change.

Charging Americans more tax in an effort to curb it is a joke. That will put too much burden on us.

mhgaffney
05-16-2013, 11:03 AM
These are not normal contrails. Obviously, there is a secret spraying program.

Idiots will deny it. So what else is new?

MHG

baja
05-16-2013, 11:06 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jXPWco_0ivo

See the naked girls

W*GS
05-16-2013, 03:37 PM
These are not normal contrails. Obviously, there is a secret spraying program.

Not this **** again.

This is not a normal human being:

http://www.gnosticsecrets.com/images/Marksmile-250-opt.jpg

Obviously there is a secret genetic mutation program to result in such an incredibly vile and stupid person.

gaffe will deny it. So what else is new?

PS - When was America at its apex?

W*GS
05-16-2013, 03:39 PM
I didn't say it would spell doom. I said it's unrealistic.

What's realistic about business-as-usual?

We don't have the money, but I doubt it's more expensive than pricing carbon high enough to shut down entire industries though. The auto industry and the meat industry are a couple of them that need to go away if we're to reduce carbon as the world population grows.

Sigh. Cars need not require fossil fuels. Meat, we'll see.

BroncoBeavis
05-16-2013, 03:44 PM
Sigh. Cars need not require fossil fuels. LOL

Until they start building in Mr. Fusions, I think that's the unfortunate reality for some time to come. Unicorn methane production has fallen well short of expectations. LOL

W*GS
05-16-2013, 03:50 PM
LOL

Until they start building in Mr. Fusions, I think that's the unfortunate reality for some time to come. Unicorn methane production has fallen well short of expectations. LOL

Electric cars have a real future.

Typical conservative - the past dictates the future. You guys are always looking backwards and are ridiculously nostalgic about an imaginary past.

BroncoBeavis
05-16-2013, 03:52 PM
Electric cars have a real future.

Typical conservative - the past dictates the future. You guys are always looking backwards and are ridiculously nostalgic about an imaginary past.

And you're going to get the requisite (massive) expansion of electrical supply from...

mhgaffney
05-16-2013, 04:58 PM
And you're going to get the requisite (massive) expansion of electrical supply from...

Tesla was on the right track. Had he been allowed to complete his project on Long Island -- the hydrogen economy would have already come to pass.

Harness the electricity in lightning -- and electric power will become too cheap to meter.

Then hydrogen power becomes feasible.

MHG

BroncoBeavis
05-16-2013, 08:13 PM
Tesla was on the right track. Had he been allowed to complete his project on Long Island -- the hydrogen economy would have already come to pass.

Harness the electricity in lightning -- and electric power will become too cheap to meter.

Then hydrogen power becomes feasible.

MHG

No Gaff, I was talking about in THIS space-time continuum. :)

W*GS
05-16-2013, 08:53 PM
And you're going to get the requisite (massive) expansion of electrical supply from...

Conservation. Solar. Wind. Geothermal for other energy needs.

Sticking with fossil fuels is a dead end. Literally.

W*GS
05-16-2013, 08:53 PM
Tesla was on the right track. Had he been allowed to complete his project on Long Island -- the hydrogen economy would have already come to pass.

Harness the electricity in lightning -- and electric power will become too cheap to meter.

Then hydrogen power becomes feasible.

MHG

More **** from the king of the ****heads.

PS - When was America at its apex?

BroncoBeavis
05-16-2013, 09:21 PM
Conservation. Solar. Wind. Geothermal for other energy needs.

Sticking with fossil fuels is a dead end. Literally.

That's a nice dream you got there. Here in the real, market-driven world though any meaningful increase in electrical generation is really going to come from natural gas or coal. At least for the foreseeable future.

And it would probably be better just to burn natural gas in vehicles than it would be to convert it to electricity, transmit it hundreds of miles to charge huge and inefficient battery banks to run tiny cars with limited range.

W*GS
05-16-2013, 09:35 PM
That's a nice dream you got there. Here in the real, market-driven world though any meaningful increase in electrical generation is really going to come from natural gas or coal. At least for the foreseeable future.

And it would probably be better just to burn natural gas in vehicles than it would be to convert it to electricity, transmit it hundreds of miles to charge huge and inefficient battery banks to run tiny cars with limited range.

That's not 1/10th as ludicrous as shipping untold billions of our dollars overseas to hostile regimes that fund lunatics that fly our planes into our buildings killing thousands of us, and spending untold billions more on wars in those lands to protect their revenue at our expense, just so Mr. America can drive a 2+ ton behemoth that gets 14 mpg a mile or so to the grocery store to get a bag of potato chips.

baja
05-16-2013, 09:49 PM
That's not 1/10th as ludicrous as shipping untold billions of our dollars overseas to hostile regimes that fund lunatics that fly our planes into our buildings killing thousands of us, and spending untold billions more on wars in those lands to protect their revenue at our expense, just so Mr. America can drive a 2+ ton behemoth that gets 14 mpg a mile or so to the grocery store to get a bag of potato chips.

I would think this would serve as a strong clue that our government does not act of it own accord but is forced into servitude to a shadowy power beyond the confines of the USA (be it global or beyond )Why is this not obvious to a clever person such as yourself?

cutthemdown
05-16-2013, 10:09 PM
I would think this would serve as a strong clue that our government does not act of it own accord but is forced into servitude to a shadowy power beyond the confines of the USA (be it global or beyond )Why is this not obvious to a clever person such as yourself?

Aliens from Galgamek?

baja
05-16-2013, 10:13 PM
Aliens from Galgamek?

Does it really matter who.

cutthemdown
05-16-2013, 10:20 PM
Does it really matter who.

Not if your Hilliary Clinton.

BroncoBeavis
05-17-2013, 01:06 AM
That's not 1/10th as ludicrous as shipping untold billions of our dollars overseas to hostile regimes that fund lunatics that fly our planes into our buildings killing thousands of us, and spending untold billions more on wars in those lands to protect their revenue at our expense, just so Mr. America can drive a 2+ ton behemoth that gets 14 mpg a mile or so to the grocery store to get a bag of potato chips.

Gonna go ahead and guess you don't have any kids. And apparently you don't ever travel long distances. I know I can't justify $40,000 to buy a car that can't do what I need it to.

Oh and all that gas or coal would be domestic so you're not really making any sense with your world oil market jingotribe. LOL

Fedaykin
05-17-2013, 02:26 AM
That's a nice dream you got there. Here in the real, market-driven world though any meaningful increase in electrical generation is really going to come from natural gas or coal. At least for the foreseeable future.

And it would probably be better just to burn natural gas in vehicles than it would be to convert it to electricity, transmit it hundreds of miles to charge huge and inefficient battery banks to run tiny cars with limited range.

An internal combustion engine is the least efficient way currently used to power a vehicle -- by far. To imply electric cars are less efficient is ludicrous.

But by all means keep clinging to your silly notions.

BroncoBeavis
05-17-2013, 05:20 AM
While electric-car owners may cruise around feeling virtuous, they still recharge using electricity overwhelmingly produced with fossil fuels. Thus, the life-cycle analysis shows that for every mile driven, the average electric car indirectly emits about six ounces of carbon-dioxide. This is still a lot better than a similar-size conventional car, which emits about 12 ounces per mile. But remember, the production of the electric car has already resulted in sizeable emissions—the equivalent of 80,000 miles of travel in the vehicle.
So unless the electric car is driven a lot, it will never get ahead environmentally. And that turns out to be a challenge. Consider the Nissan Leaf. It has only a 73-mile range per charge. Drivers attempting long road trips, as in one BBC test drive, have reported that recharging takes so long that the average speed is close to six miles per hour—a bit faster than your average jogger.
http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/a/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472?mg=ren o64-wsj

73 miles per charge. Hey that sounds ”efficient" (for maybe a traveling hobo or something)

W*GS
05-17-2013, 05:44 AM
I would think this would serve as a strong clue that our government does not act of it own accord but is forced into servitude to a shadowy power beyond the confines of the USA (be it global or beyond )Why is this not obvious to a clever person such as yourself?

Because I'm not insane.

Man, you're an idiot.

Fedaykin
05-17-2013, 09:57 AM
http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/a/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472?mg=ren o64-wsj

73 miles per charge. Hey that sounds ”efficient" (for maybe a traveling hobo or something)

Hilarious!

Are you completely ignorant of what the word "efficient" means? it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means....

Efficiency (in this context) is a measure of how much input energy is required to produce the output mechanical energy of the vehicle. In other words how much "gas" to go a mile, or more generically, how many joules of energy required to travel a linear distance.

It has nothing to do with range. You're confusing efficiency and energy density.

In that respect (i.e. actual efficiency) electric cars are vastly more efficient than internal combustion engines. The Tesla model S produces 400 horsepower with about 1/5 the input energy of a 400HP ICE. This is because a mass produced, consumer internal custom engine is only about 25-30% efficient at converting the chemical energy in gasoline to mechanical energy, while an electric motor, even mass produced consumer versions, is typically over 90% efficient. The electric motor in the Tesla model S is 98% efficient, in the leaf it's 92% IIRC.

It's the extremely high efficiency of an electric motor that makes a low energy density storage mechanism like a battery still feasible for a car.

BroncoBeavis
05-17-2013, 12:12 PM
Hilarious!

Are you completely ignorant of what the word "efficient" means? it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means....

Efficient can mean many different things. You can worship at the altar of Energy Efficiency. But to the real world, operational efficiency matters just as much, if not more.

The third world is by far the most "energy efficient" economy out there. But you don' hand wash your clothes just because it's the most "energy efficient" (and operationally inefficient) way to do it.

A car that can only go 100 miles before needing a 6 hour break falls into the same category. It's well below the operational efficiency most people require in their primary vehicle. Is there a niche for it? Sure. But that's the great thing about the market. People will tend to buy the most efficient solution... if it's a solution that actually meets their needs.

Fedaykin
05-17-2013, 12:31 PM
Efficient can mean many different things. You can worship at the altar of Energy Efficiency. But to the real world, operational efficiency matters just as much, if not more.


When shown you don't have a clue what you're talking about, attempt to redefine the words! That's a fun game!

You should learn the meanings of the words you are trying to use bub.

As far as range concerns, you're taking a single example and claiming two very stupid things.

a.) That most people's needs are more than 70 miles per day (ridiculous, that would imply most people drive 25,000+ miles a year, which is not the case)

The reality is Less than 92% of commuters drive less than 35 miles a day. 98% drive less than 50 one way per day.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/commute-statistics/

b.) that the leaf is indicative of something other than one of the first iterations of an immature technology. As I've already pointed out a half dozen times, it's not even the only example. The Tesla Model S gets 300 miles per charge, and can get 150mi of range from a 30 minute charge. And this is still with technology that is merely in its infancy compared to technology (ICE) that has over a century of refinement.

BroncoBeavis
05-17-2013, 12:48 PM
When shown you don't have a clue what you're talking about, attempt to redefine the words! That's a fun game!

It was more a play on words than anything. Take a pill.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/business/energy-environment/for-hybrid-and-electric-cars-to-pay-off-owners-must-wait.html

According to TrueCar, a buyer who chose the Leaf instead of a Nissan Versa would need to drive it for almost nine years at today’s gas prices or six years at $5 a gallon before the fuel savings outweighed the nearly $10,000 difference in price.

And for all that extra up-front expense? You get a car that basically can't functionally leave town. LOL

I've got nothing against EVs in principle. Just this silly idea that we need philosopher kings to sit around and devise ways to cajole and restrict people into buying something less than what they believe is the best solution for their needs.

Fedaykin
05-17-2013, 01:00 PM
It was more a play on words than anything. Take a pill.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/business/energy-environment/for-hybrid-and-electric-cars-to-pay-off-owners-must-wait.html


More bull****. You didn't understand the difference between efficiency and energy density. Just own up to it like a man.



And for all that extra up-front expense? You get a car that basically can't functionally leave town. LOL


If 70 miles in a day is not enough for you on a regular basis, then don't get a leaf. If you're worried about needing to drive more than the range of a particluar EV (70 for a leaf, 300 for a Model S, etc.) just a couple times a year if you avoid the car for that reason you're just a stupid as the people who buy trucks that get used as trucks once or twice a year.

Also, who (besides a moron) cares it it's more expensive up front. The only thing that matters is overall cost of ownership. The difference in fuel price can easily eclipse the added monthly loan payment.


I've got nothing against EVs in principle. Just this silly idea that we need philosopher kings to sit around and devise ways to cajole and restrict people into buying something less than what they believe is the best solution for their needs.

Nice try at a diversion. You're very reliant on that particular tactic.

BroncoBeavis
05-17-2013, 01:10 PM
Why don't you go look up what the definition for the world Efficient is, dumbass.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+efficient

Stagecoaches are more "efficient" by your definition. Steam Engines were also more "efficient"

Both were discarded because they're too much of a PITA to deal with in transportation. Just like an EV would be for anyone who travels even a marginal number of times a year.

If 70 miles in a day is not enough for you on a regular basis, then don't get a leaf. If you're worried about needing to drive more than the range of a particluar EV (70 for a leaf, 300 for a Model S, etc.) just a couple times a year if you avoid the car for that reason you're just a stupid as the people who buy trucks that get used as trucks once or twice a year.

Yeah, you should totally buy a more expensive electric car that might help pay off the difference in price in a decade or so. Oh and that also requires you to buy another car just to go on vacation. LOL

Fedaykin
05-17-2013, 01:41 PM
Why don't you go look up what the definition for the world Efficient is, dumbass.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+efficient

Stagecoaches are more "efficient" by your definition. Steam Engines were also more "efficient"

Both were discarded because they're too much of a PITA to deal with in transportation. Just like an EV would be for anyone who travels even a marginal number of times a year.


Just stop. You didn't understand the difference between efficiency and other performance considerations (i.e. range, speed, etc.). You're just digging a bigger hole now. Cut your losses.



Yeah, you should totally buy a more expensive electric car that might help pay off the difference in price in a decade or so.

Again, you're pointing to one of the first production models and trying to pretend that's the best that can be done.

Do you also not understand what "immature technology" means? Progress, particularly in the cost and range areas, is happening quickly. Tesla has already reduced costs of their technology by nearly 50% and is making huge improvements in range and recharge times.

Also, the cost difference of EVs is currently offset with tax incentives, which in the case of the Versa erases the cost difference in some states and greatly reduces it in all. The actual break even point for a Versa is a couple years. And if you buy a new car every couple years, you have no right to complain about expense.

Now of course you'll howl like an idiot that it's a government subsidy, but of course petrol cars are heavily subsidized through fuel prices as well as hundreds of billions in R&D subsidies over the last century. Why shouldn't the next evolution in transportation be afforded the same?

Oh and that also requires you to buy another car just to go on vacation. LOL

Only a total moron like you would look at the problem as say: gee: I guess I'll have to outright buy a car just to go on vacation. Just like the idiots who think the only solution to needing a truck occasionally is to buy a truck...

Hint: millions of people survive (including going on vacation) without owning even ONE car. Just like millions of people survive the woes of needing to rent a truck to haul some sh*t once in a while.

BroncoBeavis
05-17-2013, 02:42 PM
Just stop. You didn't understand the difference between efficiency and other performance considerations (i.e. range, speed, etc.). You're just digging a bigger hole now. Cut your losses.

No, I said a car that can travel long distances at an effective rate of 6mph isn't "efficient" for the user. You know, the person that matters (as opposed to Gaia) LOL


Again, you're pointing to one of the first production models and trying to pretend that's the best that can be done.

Do you also not understand what "immature technology" means? Progress, particularly in the cost and range areas, is happening quickly. Tesla has already reduced costs of their technology by nearly 50% and is making huge improvements in range and recharge times.

There's nothing inherently new about electric motors or batteries. They're a couple of the oldest technologies around since man learned to harness electricity. Slapping wheels on it and pretending that it's something new doesn't suddenly unbind all the technical limitations electric motors and especially batteries have been trying to overcome for centuries. The Li-ion batteries used by Tesla are based on technology invented 30 years ago. If a revolutionary new battery technology comes along, it will have zero to do with a carmaker using batteries in cars.

Meanwhile, companies like Volkswagen keep pushing envelopes in other directions. Their diesel hybrid stuff is pretty groundbreaking. And you could drive it for 23.5 hours a day (with a break or two for filling up)

Like I said, I have no beef with EVs. Only with people acting like we need market incentives (distortion) to get people to pick the best product that meets their needs (the important part)

W*GS
05-17-2013, 03:14 PM
Like I said, I have no beef with EVs. Only with people acting like we need market incentives (distortion) to get people to pick the best product that meets their needs (the important part)

The important part is a livable planet for 7+ billion people.

We need to correct the market failure that comes from pricing carbon emissions (which is causing AGW) at zero - that's the distortion.

BroncoBeavis
05-17-2013, 03:27 PM
The important part is a livable planet for 7+ billion people.

We need to correct the market failure that comes from pricing carbon emissions (which is causing AGW) at zero - that's the distortion.

Yeah, we totally need another byzantine federal program and regulatory body just to deliver improvements like:

Even if the electric car is driven for 90,000 miles and the owner stays away from coal-powered electricity, the car will cause just 24% less carbon-dioxide emission than its gas-powered cousin. This is a far cry from "zero emissions." Over its entire lifetime, the electric car will be responsible for 8.7 tons of carbon dioxide less than the average conventional car.

Those 8.7 tons may sound like a considerable amount, but it's not. The current best estimate of the global warming damage of an extra ton of carbon-dioxide is about $5. This means an optimistic assessment of the avoided carbon-dioxide associated with an electric car will allow the owner to spare the world about $44 in climate damage. On the European emissions market, credit for 8.7 tons of carbon-dioxide costs $48.

Spend $70 grand on a Tesla to save $50 bucks in carbon coupons.

Sounds like a program that's really going to accomplish something. LOL

Fedaykin
05-17-2013, 03:33 PM
No, I said a car that can travel long distances at an effective rate of 6mph isn't "efficient" for the user. You know, the person that matters (as opposed to Gaia) LOL


You're still pretending you weren't confused. That's fine.


There's nothing inherently new about electric motors or batteries.


Irrelevant. The effort to make battery technology suitable as a replacement for ICE is indeed at an immature stage. Only the market pressure of increased need for efficiency has spurred significant development in that arena. And now that that market pressure is there, we're seeing big progress. Again, see Tesla building EVs with 300 mi range and 400hp that can be significantly recharged in 30 minutes. And, they've reduced the absolute cost by 40% in 3 years. That's near miraculous progress without even a fundamental breakthrough in the technology. You don't get that kind of rapid improvement in a mature technology.

We've been burning things for energy for hundreds of thousands of years -- doesn't mean trying make a gas powered vehicle wasn't an immature technology when it first came out.


Meanwhile, companies like Volkswagen keep pushing envelopes in other directions. Their diesel hybrid stuff is pretty groundbreaking. And you could drive it for 23.5 hours a day (with a break or two for filling up)


The reason Volkwagon (and other companies) are down that path is we've reached the end of any significant gains in ICE technology -- we've hit a fundamental limit of that technology. Without a fundamental change, ICEs are not going to be able to leap forward like EV tech currently is.


Like I said, I have no beef with EVs. Only with people acting like we need market incentives (distortion) to get people to pick the best product that meets their needs (the important part)

The market incentives only make it a no brainier for someone who is looking to intelligently pick a car for moving their ass from one place to the other. Of course they are not suitable for all uses, but they suitable for a significant subset, perhaps even a majority subset.

And to imply that people pick the best product that suits their needs is quite hilarious. Many people buy trucks and SUVs, etc. not because they NEED it, but because they are cool or they are particularly terrible at making decisions (i.e. your suggestion that you'd need to buy a car just to take a vacation).

W*GS
05-17-2013, 03:34 PM
Yeah, we totally need another byzantine federal program and regulatory body just to deliver improvements like:

Just price carbon, then let the market react to the corrected price.

Or would that be impossible for the market to handle?

It's a pity you can't dump used motor oil into the gutter any more, eh?

Fedaykin
05-17-2013, 03:38 PM
Yeah, we totally need another byzantine federal program and regulatory body just to deliver improvements like:



Spend $70 grand on a Tesla to save $50 bucks in carbon coupons.

Sounds like a program that's really going to accomplish something. LOL

Tesla is currently targeting the luxury buyer market, and absolutely dominating it. Outselling BMW, Audi and several other luxury makers combined. Good strategy to target the high margin markets first (see: Apple)

They are developing standard full size sedan and SUV (same platform different body) that will be a cheaper, non-luxury evolution of their Model S and Model X.

BroncoBeavis
05-17-2013, 03:55 PM
Tesla is currently targeting the luxury buyer market, and absolutely dominating it. Outselling BMW, Audi and several other luxury makers combined. Good strategy to target the high margin markets first (see: Apple)

uhuh

http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/51914b14eab8ea7f51000008-916-390/screen%20shot%202013-05-13%20at%204.16.43%20pm.png

BroncoBeavis
05-17-2013, 04:02 PM
Just price carbon, then let the market react to the corrected price.

Or would that be impossible for the market to handle?

It's a pity you can't dump used motor oil into the gutter any more, eh?

You act like it's just a matter of setting some price and watching the proceeds roll in. You do realize there'd have to be a ton of tracking and scorekeeping involved.

Needless to say, none of it is nearly as simple as you like to make it sound.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-28/europes-carbon-emissions-market-is-crashing

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4557f206-a5ea-11e2-9b77-00144feabdc0.html

cutthemdown
05-17-2013, 04:26 PM
Electricity already really high in so calif. Some parts of the country cant afford more tax from carbon wgs. We are taxed as far as we can go in CA, NY etc etc. A carbon tax is out of the question and won't pass in Congress. In fact Obama knows he doesn't have the juice to get it done. He thought 2nd term would be some roll. I said when it started Obama should be smart and come to the center and get things done. What would he have to lose he already has been elected. But instead he thought he could put the screws to the repubs and he is paying dearly. He may only get immigration done and that it. Also I love how dems trying to say the IRS scandal because of campaign finance reform didn't go through. They blame everything on something else.

cutthemdown
05-17-2013, 04:27 PM
Tesla is currently targeting the luxury buyer market, and absolutely dominating it. Outselling BMW, Audi and several other luxury makers combined. Good strategy to target the high margin markets first (see: Apple)

They are developing standard full size sedan and SUV (same platform different body) that will be a cheaper, non-luxury evolution of their Model S and Model X.

They only make what 5000 a yr? How can they dominate anything like that? Not saying its not a cool car. Its the only electric I would want.

Arkie
05-17-2013, 04:36 PM
You act like it's just a matter of setting some price and watching the proceeds roll in. You do realize there'd have to be a ton of tracking and scorekeeping involved.

Needless to say, none of it is nearly as simple as you like to make it sound.



and since it's a global problem that requires a global solution, we'll have to track and keep score in remote villages of the developing world.

baja
05-17-2013, 05:00 PM
and since it's a global problem that requires a global solution, we'll have to track and keep score in remote villages of the developing world.


Hey I got an idea let's erase all borders end all Sovereignty; submit to a global authority consolidate power into One World Order.... It is the only way to save ourselves from this global problem that, lest resolved we all die.

There's a movie script there for ya if you like.

I leave the ending to you.

mhgaffney
05-17-2013, 05:37 PM
Electricity already really high in so calif. Some parts of the country cant afford more tax from carbon wgs. We are taxed as far as we can go in CA, NY etc etc. A carbon tax is out of the question and won't pass in Congress. In fact Obama knows he doesn't have the juice to get it done. He thought 2nd term would be some roll. I said when it started Obama should be smart and come to the center and get things done. What would he have to lose he already has been elected. But instead he thought he could put the screws to the repubs and he is paying dearly. He may only get immigration done and that it. Also I love how dems trying to say the IRS scandal because of campaign finance reform didn't go through. They blame everything on something else.

My electric bill last month was $21.

After switching to LED lights, a Sunfrost refrig, and after changing from electric hot water to a propane heat-on-demand water heater.

MHG

El Minion
05-17-2013, 05:57 PM
uhuh

http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/51914b14eab8ea7f51000008-916-390/screen%20shot%202013-05-13%20at%204.16.43%20pm.png

Tesla only has two models, not the dozens that the other offer.

Tesla sales beating Mercedes, BMW and Audi (http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/13/autos/tesla-sales-bmw-mercedes-audi/)

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/130510073830-tesla-model-s-sales-chart-620xa.png

Fedaykin
05-17-2013, 07:51 PM
They only make what 5000 a yr? How can they dominate anything like that? Not saying its not a cool car. Its the only electric I would want.

As I clarified, they are dominating in their class, and I i said earlier doing so with unheard of (for a car maker) profit margins.

And that do that while providing free recharging.

Fedaykin
05-17-2013, 07:54 PM
uhuh



As El Minion has already helped clarify, I was imprecise.

W*GS
05-17-2013, 08:03 PM
You act like it's just a matter of setting some price and watching the proceeds roll in. You do realize there'd have to be a ton of tracking and scorekeeping involved.

Nope. Add the cost at the wellhead.

BroncoBeavis
05-17-2013, 08:14 PM
Tesla only has two models, not the dozens that the other offer.

Tesla sales beating Mercedes, BMW and Audi (http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/13/autos/tesla-sales-bmw-mercedes-audi/)

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/130510073830-tesla-model-s-sales-chart-620xa.png

Whether they choose to offer 1,000 models or only one, it's not an accurate measure of "market share" to pick only one of your competition's products and "compete" against that.

If we're talking about luxury car market share (as Mr Context said we were) Tesla is next to insignificant. Not that Tesla's doing poorly. Good for them. But you're not going to change the world in the luxury car market segment. They have a sliver of a sliver.

Fedaykin
05-17-2013, 09:08 PM
Whether they choose to offer 1,000 models or only one, it's not an accurate measure of "market share" to pick only one of your competition's products and "compete" against that.

If we're talking about luxury car market share (as Mr Context said we were) Tesla is next to insignificant. Not that Tesla's doing poorly. Good for them. But you're not going to change the world in the luxury car market segment. They have a sliver of a sliver.

As i said, they're targeting the luxury market since that provides the highest margins giving them the most capital to work with to do further R&D. It's not some big secret, it's right there in their business plan.

cutthemdown
05-18-2013, 03:36 AM
My electric bill last month was $21.

After switching to LED lights, a Sunfrost refrig, and after changing from electric hot water to a propane heat-on-demand water heater.

MHG

What do you pay per kilowat hour?

BroncoBeavis
05-18-2013, 04:13 AM
As i said, they're targeting the luxury market since that provides the highest margins giving them the most capital to work with to do further R&D. It's not some big secret, it's right there in their business plan.

BMW, Mercedes, Audi, and Caddie are all exclusively targeting the luxury market. Again the problem is you're comparing a company with one product to companies with many, while only looking at one of their models. Teslas overall luxury market share is a drop in the bucket.

cutthemdown
05-22-2013, 03:09 AM
We don't need the world livable for 7 billion people. We need to make sure America comes out on top. Since when do we care about making the whole world livable? Let me get this right you don't want to be the police of the world but you wan't to be their fairy godfather instead?

I have no problem with trying to go green but you can't force it. When a company can make money on solar they will do it. Helping them along with loans that don't get paid back is nonesense. We should frack the hell out of the Bakken, export the gas, tax the exports because those oil companies will be making tons, use the money to go to mars. We need to get back to huge undertakings not worrying about cooling the earth. If Earth warming and it doesn't stop at some point we will just have to adapt. Buying a Tesla, putting solar on our roofs, paying up the ass for energy just won't do anything. Earth will still warm up but we will be broke.

Besides it will drought the mideast into dying off and that might not be so bad. **** most of the world i say. Most of them hate us anyways.

cutthemdown
05-22-2013, 03:11 AM
Tesla will sell cars until the electric car buffs have bought them. They won't hold those sales numbers. It is a killer car though but not many can afford it. I know someone who had the roadster a long time ago. He got free electricty at his work for yrs until they told him to stop. Telsa cool because it just plug into an outlet. No big fancy charging station.

W*GS
05-22-2013, 05:20 AM
We don't need the world livable for 7 billion people. We need to make sure America comes out on top. Since when do we care about making the whole world livable? Let me get this right you don't want to be the police of the world but you wan't to be their fairy godfather instead?

I have no problem with trying to go green but you can't force it. When a company can make money on solar they will do it. Helping them along with loans that don't get paid back is nonesense. We should frack the hell out of the Bakken, export the gas, tax the exports because those oil companies will be making tons, use the money to go to mars. We need to get back to huge undertakings not worrying about cooling the earth. If Earth warming and it doesn't stop at some point we will just have to adapt. Buying a Tesla, putting solar on our roofs, paying up the ass for energy just won't do anything. Earth will still warm up but we will be broke.

Besides it will drought the mideast into dying off and that might not be so bad. **** most of the world i say. Most of them hate us anyways.

Don't post when you're drunk or high.

El Minion
05-26-2013, 02:19 PM
"98 doctors tell you to treat your son this way, 2 say the other way...it's not conservative to go with the 2...those are the numbers" – Bob Inglis (R)


495: Hot In My Backyard (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/495/hot-in-my-backyard)
MAY 17, 2013

After years of being stuck, the national conversation on climate change finally started to shift — just a little — last year, the hottest year on record in the U.S., with Hurricane Sandy flooding the New York subway, drought devastating Midwest farms, and California and Colorado on fire. Lots of people were wondering if global warming had finally arrived, here at home. This week, stories about this new reality.

Host Ira Glass remembers Hurricane Sandy, and the feeling that we might be getting a preview of what the world would looking like as climate change continues. He talks about how stuck the country’s conversation about climate change has been, but how for the first time in a long time, it seems that might change. (2 minutes)

ACT ONE

The CO2 in CO

Reporter Julia Kumari Drapkin tells the story of Colorado’s State Climatologist, Nolan Doesken. Doesken has long believed the humans are driving climate change, but never connected it to his own life. Even after several years of some of the most devastating weather his state has ever seen, Nolan considered climate change a worry for the future. Then, last year, he watched as his state experience some of the most extreme weather it ever has. For the first time, Nolan felt like he was looking at what the future would be like where he lives. He felt scared. Julia tells the story of how this has all changed Nolan, and changed what he’s saying to the people of his home state. Julia is the lead producer of iSeeChange at station KVNF, funded by Localore, AIR and CPB. (18 minutes)

ACT TWO

The Right Man for the Job.

Producer Ben Calhoun tells the story of a former Congressional Representative from South Carolina, Bob Inglis. Inglis is a conservative Republican who once doubted climate science. After he looked at the research, he changed his mind, and decided to speak out. In 2010, he was mocked by people in his own party and trounced in by a Tea Party-backed candidate. Since then, Bob has dedicated himself to the issue even more — and he’s now trying to create a conservative coalition for climate change action. (15 minutes)

ACT THREE

Find an Enemy.

Host Ira Glass tells the story of writer turned activist Bill McKibben. McKibben is trying to reinvent progressive politics when it come to climate change. He’s attempting to create a divestment campaign modeled after the successful campaign against apartheid in South Africa. The campaign is designed recast the discussion of climate change with fossil fuel companies as the villains. (18 minutes)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

cutthemdown
05-26-2013, 05:42 PM
Don't post when you're drunk or high.

Oh man you trying to get rid of me?

W*GS
05-26-2013, 05:50 PM
Oh man you trying to get rid of me?

You're comfortable with billions more dying over the rest of the century.

You're either drunk, high, or one psychopathic ****.

baja
05-26-2013, 06:00 PM
You're comfortable with billions more dying over the rest of the century.

You're either drunk, high, or one psychopathic ****.


The lizard people are changing the atmosphere. They are more suited to a higher concentration of CO2. They prefer a more acidic atmosphere. That's why the chem trails.

cutthemdown
05-26-2013, 07:25 PM
[QUOTE=W*GS;3852742]You're comfortable with billions more dying over the rest of the century.

Liberals crack me up. They say they don't want to police the world. But then turn around and want to take responsibility for billions of people who may suffer if the Earth warms up. America already doing more then most countries to go green. I only drive about 10 thousand miles a yr W*gs how much do you drive?

I don't fly but maybe once a yr to go on 1 vacation, how often do you fly? i decided Earth had enough people so me and my lady don't want kids. How many did you have? I make my money by helping people through lawsuits and playing music. Once again a very low footprint co2 wise. What do you do W*GS. Then ask yourself who is worst for co2 me or you.

W*GS
05-26-2013, 07:47 PM
Liberals crack me up. They say they don't want to police the world. But then turn around and want to take responsibility for billions of people who may suffer if the Earth warms up.

You won't accept responsibility for anything.

W*GS
05-26-2013, 07:49 PM
The lizard people are changing the atmosphere. They are more suited to a higher concentration of CO2. They prefer a more acidic atmosphere. That's why the chem trails.

Don't post when you're drunk or high, or, in your case, your usual state.

Did you suffer a traumatic head injury at one time that resulted in the removal of much of your brain?

baja
05-26-2013, 07:57 PM
Don't post when you're drunk or high, or, in your case, your usual state.

Did you suffer a traumatic head injury at one time that resulted in the removal of much of your brain?


Know what the lizard people live off of? The fear of pre pubescent children.

See it in Stanley Kubreck's Eyes wide Shut. Think about the title. You are ignoring and minimizing pure evil.

W*GS
05-26-2013, 08:44 PM
Know what the lizard people live off of? The fear of pre pubescent children.

They get a heaping helping of fear from you. You're one of the biggest scaredy-cats I've ever run across. You're shot through with paranoia.

See it in Stanley Kubreck's Eyes wide Shut. Think about the title.

Ummmm, errrrr, ahhh - it's a freakin' movie! But it does have Nicole Kidman's titties on display. Yum.

You are ignoring and minimizing pure evil.

You're ignoring reality. Go ignore a cliff.

baja
05-26-2013, 08:58 PM
They get a heaping helping of fear from you. You're one of the biggest scaredy-cats I've ever run across. You're shot through with paranoia.



Ummmm, errrrr, ahhh - it's a freakin' movie! But it does have Nicole Kidman's titties on display. Yum.



You're ignoring reality. Go ignore a cliff.

I am not afraid you old fool I am trying to help you

W*GS
05-26-2013, 09:02 PM
I am not afraid you old fool I am trying to help you

With bull****?

You're just displacing blame like gaffe does - you have your reptilians, he has the Jews.

DivineLegion
05-26-2013, 09:08 PM
For the love of everything we hold dear, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have NOTHING to do with Al freaking Gore. Bill Mckibbon was one of the pioneers of climate science in the 1980s, and all of his forecasted predictions have come true, or worse. This isn't Al Gores brain child, or some crazy fares made up by the left


Really quick...

Does everyone understand the greenhouse effect?

The Carbon cycle?

Cellular respiration, and photosynthesis?



I'll give everyone some time to educate themselves, and then I will be back to show you how it all works together. Hopefully once you understand these three basic scientific principles, which my finances little sister is studying in Middle school, you will be prepared for a level of understanding that compels many in the scientific community to become alarmed in regard to an unfortunate milestones such as this.

cutthemdown
05-27-2013, 03:21 AM
You won't accept responsibility for anything.

Dude I put in a drought tolerant front yard. I participate in the BEACH CLEANUP MEETUP GROUP here in my city. I use almost all LED lightbulbs and usually run my big appliances at night as I am a night owl.

I set my thermostat at 80 degrees as I don't need it 70 to be comfy in 100 degree or 90 degree heat. I don't drive much and I don't fly much. I have my grocery bags so that i don't waste plastic ones from the store which end up in the ocean.

I am an environmentalist actually. I just disagree any of that will cool the Earth. To do that we will have to geoengineer IMO. I've also contributed to my nephews plant a tree campaign he did with the boy scouts. I just don't sit around on the internet like you trying to act better then everyone else.

W*GS
05-27-2013, 07:09 AM
Please read, cut:

Geoengineering: Our Last Hope, or a False Promise? (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/opinion/geoengineering-our-last-hope-or-a-false-promise.html)

BroncoBeavis
05-27-2013, 10:35 AM
For the love of everything we hold dear, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have NOTHING to do with Al freaking Gore. Bill Mckibbon was one of the pioneers of climate science in the 1980s, and all of his forecasted predictions have come true, or worse. This isn't Al Gores brain child, or some crazy fares made up by the left


Really quick...

Does everyone understand the greenhouse effect?

The Carbon cycle?

Cellular respiration, and photosynthesis?



I'll give everyone some time to educate themselves, and then I will be back to show you how it all works together. Hopefully once you understand these three basic scientific principles, which my finances little sister is studying in Middle school, you will be prepared for a level of understanding that compels many in the scientific community to become alarmed in regard to an unfortunate milestones such as this.

Meh. McKibben reads like another one of the prototypical chicken littlers. 25 years ago he said the earth would 'burn up' in a few decades if his prescription weren't followed.

Meanwhile we're riding a decade-long flat spot in temperature that none of the experts or their models predicted.

The problem with all of them is theythink of the Earth in terms more applicable to a laboratory clean room. Monitor one input, predict one output. Problem is, there are much bigger players (internally and externally) in the atmospheric greenhouse effect, as well as many potential negative feedbacks that are far beyond man's ability to quantify or even basically understand.

Needless to say, and as I pointed to earlier

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions

Leading models falling outside their 5% confidence margin this early in the game leaves a rational person with no choice but to doubt their accuracy.

W*GS
05-27-2013, 11:03 AM
Meanwhile we're riding a decade-long flat spot in temperature that none of the experts or their models predicted.

Wrong and wrong.

Leading models falling outside their 5% confidence margin this early in the game leaves a rational person with no choice but to doubt their accuracy.

Wrong and wrong.

What you need to know about climate sensitivity (http://skepticalscience.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-climate-sensitivity.html)

BroncoBeavis
05-27-2013, 11:06 AM
Wrong and wrong.



Wrong and wrong.

What you need to know about climate sensitivity (http://skepticalscience.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-climate-sensitivity.html)

Neat. A Website!

I tend not to argue with websites. They're not listening. :)

W*GS
05-27-2013, 11:09 AM
Neat. A Website!

I tend not to argue with websites. They're not listening. :)

You need to be the one listening.

cutthemdown
05-27-2013, 09:00 PM
Look at everything they have done and still co2 goes up. It will keep going up also no way to stop it. The changes people talk about, electric cars, wind farms, won't dent it. Not even a little.

Rohirrim
05-28-2013, 05:03 AM
Take the head-in-the-sand approach of Cut and Beavis and multiply it by 100 to get the position of the Republicans. They are not defending any scientific ground. They are defending a religion.

cutthemdown
05-28-2013, 07:11 AM
Please read, cut:

Geoengineering: Our Last Hope, or a False Promise? (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/opinion/geoengineering-our-last-hope-or-a-false-promise.html)

I read it. All it really says is all the techs discussed in geoengineering could have risks and need further study.

What i am saying W*gs is expecting the human population of the Earth to emit less co2, and then that lowers it in the atmosphere, and then temp goes down is a pipe dream. Just now way that countries like China, Indonesia, Brazil, India, and some other big emerging large nations ready to go that high tech. They still have people burning wood to cook with.

That article you linked was an opinion against geoengineering because its not the solution greenies want. They think its ****ing star trek already but its not.

The smart thing is to model what global warming will mean for the USA and develop a plan to combat it. Also much of the money currently spent wasted on solar should be given to explore the possibilities of geoengineering. At the very least as a plan B to thwart the dire consequences you predict if earth warms.

I like the idea of huge 17 mile long air sucking maching that sucks out the co2 and sequesters it deep underground. That is ****ing James Bond awesome. W*gs all you did is fire me up more. Geoengineering needs some billions baby lets build a co2 air sucking machine and then charge the world to turn it on. You want to offset some co2. Give us 100 million and your good.

El Minion
05-28-2013, 01:02 PM
<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YgiMBxaL19M?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YgiMBxaL19M?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

TonyR
05-31-2013, 08:50 AM
“What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?”

– Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, at the company’s annual shareholders’ meeting Wednesday.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/ex....php?ref=fpblg

W*GS
05-31-2013, 08:54 AM
– Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, at the company’s annual shareholders’ meeting Wednesday.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/ex....php?ref=fpblg

What a dick.

Rohirrim
05-31-2013, 10:22 AM
– Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, at the company’s annual shareholders’ meeting Wednesday.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/ex....php?ref=fpblg

"Humanity" in this case means "Me and my cronies and our rich shareholders."

The Lone Bolt
05-31-2013, 10:55 AM
Here's an interesting new finding.

Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says.

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide, according to new research from the University of Waterloo published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B this week.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html#jCp

DivineLegion
05-31-2013, 11:02 AM
Here's an interesting new finding.



Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html#jCp

CFCs have been regulated, and were more a cause of ozone holes in the atmosphere. CO2, Methane, Nitrates, and heavy phosphoric gases are the root causes of most of the global conditions we are facing. Ever since the NOAA convinced the US government and the EPA that CFCs were depleting ozone, and the representative parties took action, the large ozone holes have depreciated signifying a substantial change. CFCs are dangerous for the ozone layer, but not the cause of global warming.

Rohirrim
05-31-2013, 11:07 AM
Here's an interesting new finding.



Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html#jCp

Wow. I'll be interested to see where this goes.

W*GS
05-31-2013, 12:31 PM
Lu tried this line of argument a few years ago. Still not very convincing - more mathturbation than anything else.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Could-CFCs-be-causing-global-warming.html

W*GS
06-01-2013, 08:08 AM
Who said this?

"We must demand that the liberal left keep their hands off of our wallets. Not one dime of the carbon fee should be used to make the government bigger. One hundred percent of the money must go to the public. Nor should any of this money be used for subsidizing research on specific government-selected industries. The government is not competent to choose the best technologies—let them all compete. There are existing government resources and departments for research, development and demonstration, which can assist early development of candidate technologies."

baja
06-03-2013, 05:49 AM
Al Gore backlash: Why environmentalists are celebrating rising CO2 levels
Sunday, June 02, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)

5,894
17

(NaturalNews) Thank goodness carbon dioxide levels are finally rising ever so slightly in our atmosphere, bringing much-needed carbon dioxide to the plants and forests of the world which have been starving for CO2. The lack of CO2 in the atmosphere is one of the most devastating limiting factors for plant growth and reforestation of the planet, and at just 400ppm -- that's just 400 micrograms per kilogram -- carbon dioxide is so low that Earth's plant life can barely breathe.

Editor's note: I have added substantially to this story since it was first published in order to attempt to educate what appear to be a mass of brainwashed, mathematically illiterate commenters on Facebook who demonstrate a wholesale inability to process information with anything resembling rationality on this subject.

Let me clarify three things before we even get into the story:

#1 - NO, I do not support the coal and oil industry, and in fact I think they are terrible polluters of our planet for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with CO2. As it turns out, all the coal and oil being burned across our world right now only slightly impacts CO2 levels, especially when compared with CO2 emissions by ocean life. So my support of CO2 as an essential plant nutrient in no way is any kind of endorsement of the oil and coal industries. My long track record of activism against corporate monopolists is irrefutably solid.

#2 - YES, CO2 is an essential plant nutrient. Despite all the idiotic beliefs of people who have been brainwashed by Al Gore into believing scientific mythologies, higher CO2 levels support faster plant growth and the re-greening of our planet, period! Anyone who disagrees with this is flatly uninformed, brainwashed or just plain ignorant of plant biology (and that's a lot of people). Recent science is proving that rising CO2 levels are, in fact, expanding plant growth and reforestation around the world. Read Increase in Carbon Dioxide Levels "Greening" the Deserts at NatureWorldNews.com or read the press release from the original researchers out of Australia who documented this correlation. And everybody needs to read www.PlantsNeedCO2.org

#3 - The current level of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is 400ppm. By comparison, Oxygen exists in the atmosphere at 210,000ppm. When you exhale, your own breath contains 40,000ppm of CO2, and if you know anything about emergency first aid, then you know that breathing this 40,000ppm of CO2 into another person's body (mouth-to-mouth resuscitation) is a lifesaving action. It's not uncommon for CO2 to reach levels of 3000ppm in homes, schools and offices. OSHA allows workers to work in environments with up to 5000ppm of CO2. (Because, again, oxygen is present at 210,000ppm, vastly out-weighing the CO2.)

So all this talk of carbon dioxide threatening the entire planet at just 400ppm -- less than one-half of 1/1000th of the air -- is pure nonsense. Total quack science fearmongering.

In fact, most of what we've all been told about CO2 over the pat few years is a complete lie. It's time to stop believing these lies and wake up to reality. Most importantly, stop defending the CO2 / global warming hoax. Yes, CO2 is rising, but it's mostly from non-human activity, and rising levels actually support forests and plants everywhere.

How did I "wake up" to this information? It's simple: I used to be a believer in the CO2 hoax until I really began to study plant physiology and aquaponics production. Only then did I discover that CO2 is a vital nutrient for plant growth and that levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were radically deficient for optimal reforestation and plant biology. My awakening to this in no way means I endorse coal or oil industries, both of which are dirty polluters of the planet. But I am no longer allowing myself to be conned by the likes of Al Gore who has successfully convinced far too many people that their own breath is a global pollutant that needs to be regulated and taxed.

The CO2 scam is nothing more than a global tax moneymaking scheme being pushed by people who hope to get rich off our collective guilt for a problem that's entirely fabricated and fictional.

My original story continues here:

Throughout the history of our planet, atmospheric CO2 was much, much higher, and it supported eras of lush rainforests, rapid plant growth and far greater biodiversity than what we see today. In fact, 525 million years ago, Earth's atmospheric CO2 levels were as high at 7,000 ppm -- and far from the planet "dying" as global warming hoax pushers try to claim, it was one of the most lush and biodiverse times in our planet's history.

As the following chart clearly shows, CO2 levels are at one of their lowest levels in the history of our planet:



Carbon dioxide is greening the planet

Global warming alarmists and hoaxers, of course, have warned that CO2 levels crossing the threshold of 400ppm will spell certain doom for the human race. What they don't mention is that rising CO2 levels actually set off a "global greening," complete with forests re-growing at an accelerated rate, gardens producing more food and arid regions seeing a restoration of green plants.

In fact, a study just published in Geophysical Research Letters has documented that a 14% increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere gave rise to a 5% - 10% increase in green foliage, with a total increase in plant "cover" of 11%. That study is entitled, CO2 fertilisation has increased maximum foliage cover across the globe's warm, arid environments.

That study refers to CO2 as a "fertilizer" that causes a "fertilization effect." As the study authors explain:

Our results confirm that the anticipated CO2 fertilization effect is occurring alongside ongoing anthropogenic perturbations to the carbon cycle and that the fertilisation effect is now a significant land surface process.

CO2, you see, isn't a "pollutant." It's a nutrient!

By the way, your body is 18% carbon and 65% oxygen. (I'm going to pre-empt some stupid Facebook trolls who will say, "Not true! Your body is 75% water!" by answering in advance that H2O is made of hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen has such a low atomic weight, however, that it doesn't contribute more than about 10% to your total body mass. Then again, trying to teach science to Facebook trolls is a lot like trying to teach pigs to write javascript.)

In total, you are 83% made of the same stuff as CO2, just in a different molecular arrangement. CO2 is, of course, constantly reformed and recycled throughout the planetary ecosystem. Ocean biological activity alone produces 90 billion tons of CO2 each year -- many multiples of the far smaller amount produced by human activity (about 6 billion tons). If CO2 alone caused global warming and global death, we'd all be dead by now. It turns out that CO2 actually helps fertilize the growth and restoration of plants and forests!

Ocean plants love carbon dioxide, too!

By the way, it's not just land plants that are starving for CO2. Marine plants also need more CO2, and most marine biology came into being in a time when CO2 levels were far higher than they are today.

The higher CO2 levels are in the atmosphere, the more CO2 gets absorbed into ocean water, making it available to help marine plants thrive. This CO2, importantly, is also used to build coral reefs.

Wait a second! Haven't we all been told that CO2 is destroying coral reefs? I used to think so, too, because I hadn't scrutinized the science closely enough. But if you really dig into this issue, it turns out that coral reefs are largely being destroyed by toxic chemical runoff from human activity, not from CO2.

If you love plants and forests and gardens, you gotta love CO2

The bottom line in all this is that if you love plant life on planet Earth, you've gotta love carbon dioxide. CO2 is the key nutrient that's needed to bolster the rapid growth of nearly all plants, and right now Earth's atmosphere is in a state of carbon dioxide deficiency.

That's why professional greenhouse owners actually pump CO2 into their greenhouses to increase plant production.

Rising CO2 levels are a huge benefit to plant life across the planet. Hare-brained plans to "sequester" CO2 will cause an artificial reduction in this crucial plant nutrient, resulting in the mass global die-off of plants and the thinning of forests. Carbon sequestration is, quite literally, plant starvation and an attack against Mother Nature.

So don't buy into the disinfo hawked by CO2 alarmists like Al Gore. They are pushing an utterly fictional story about how "CO2 will destroy the world" and end human civilization if we don't stop its rise. I welcome rising CO2 levels and being scientifically trained, I know that carbon dioxide only exists at less than 1/1000th of the atmosphere. In fact, it's currently at less than half of 1/1000th of the atmosphere. That's an extremely small amount of CO2 -- just 400ppm. And it's just barely enough to keep Earth's plants from dying en masse.

Conclusion:

• CO2 is an essential plant nutrient that accelerates the growth of plants, gardens and forests.

• CO2 is present in the atmosphere at just 400 ppm. By comparison, oxygen is present at 210,000 ppm. There is barely any CO2 in the atmosphere at all.

• Higher CO2 levels means better reforestation and "greening" of the planet. As CO2 levels rise, barren regions are able to "re-green" with trees that couldn't grow there before.

• CO2 is chronically deficient in the atmosphere today; many plants are "starving" for carbon dioxide.

• NO, I do not support the oil and gas industries. In fact, there is hardly any link between energy usage and the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. The vast majority of CO2 emissions come from biology, not burning fossil fuels.


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040588_carbon_dioxide_environmentalists_Al_Gore.ht ml#ixzz2V9nOC7Rt

W*GS
06-03-2013, 09:01 AM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/g093lhtpEFo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

cutthemdown
06-03-2013, 10:09 PM
Wow how long could Pakistan survive if global warming gets worst?

cutthemdown
06-03-2013, 10:14 PM
Ok so they said areas that used to have extreme weather events once every 20 yrs will now have them once every 4-6. I love prediction but ones like this never pan out.

Rohirrim
06-04-2013, 07:24 AM
Coral reefs are dying due to higher acidity and rising temperature of the seas. This is caused by higher volumes of CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

When carbon dioxide dissolves in this ocean, carbonic acid is formed. This leads to higher acidity, mainly near the surface, which has been proven to inhibit shell growth in marine animals and is suspected as a cause of reproductive disorders in some fish.
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/

Baja, let's put it this way, if this idiot Mike Adams read the side of the package of Miracle Grow he would discover that it's great for plants. Yay! Would he then dump the whole box on his rhododendron?

The key here is balance.

Rohirrim
06-04-2013, 07:35 AM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/g093lhtpEFo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

In other words, once the phytoplankton are gone, so are we. :wave:

Rohirrim
06-04-2013, 08:37 AM
Everybody who refuses to believe in global climate change should be forced to keep a reef tank. A reef tank is an aquarium that holds a combination of fishes, corals, anemones, shrimp, snails, macroalgae and sometimes, even sponges. Nothing too huge. Thirty gallons. Actually, we'll go with 100 gallons - the bigger the tank, the easier to maintain your chemical balances. And that's the key to keeping sea creatures alive in a reef tank - balance.

You use synthetic sea salt to create the proper balance of salinity in a tank. If the salinity gets too high or too low from a narrow band of specific gravity from 1.025 to 1.028 bad things start happening. You can see that there's not much room to mess with.

Then there's temperature. Depending where you live, you'll need a heater or a chiller, or maybe both. The average temperature of the coral reefs of the world is about 82 degrees. So, you have to keep your tank at plus or minus no more than a few degrees on either side of that number. If you don't, bad things start to happen. Not much different from us, really.

Then, there's calcium. Not enough calcium and your corals start dying. Typical ocean surface levels of calcium are 420ppm. You need to keep your tank in a range of 380 to 450ppm. If not, bad things happen. There are various ways of doing this. You can use a calcium reactor or kalkwasser. You should also build your tank using live rock and aragonite sand, but that's another topic.

Then, there's one of the most critical issues of all: Alkalinity. There's a long, scientific explanation for how corals build their colonies, but simply put, the level of bicarbonate available to them is crucial to their survival. The easiest way to measure this is alkalinity. Too high, bad things happen. Too low, bad things happen.

This goes hand in hand with pH. Keep it between 7.8 and 8.3 or (once again) bad things happen.

Then, there are other important issues to deal with like phosphates (caused by too many nutrients in the water), nitrates, nitrites, magnesium, iodine, ammonia, etc. If any of these get out of whack, bad things happen.

And when I say bad things what do I mean? Well, too many phosphates and you can get various algae blooms that grow over your corals and kill them all. Oddly enough, most corals harbor sun loving algae which in turn feed them. These algae need the light to live, and they have lived this way, in this symbiotic relationship with corals, for 500 million years.

Most algae love phosphate. Corals don't. Too much ammonia? Dead fish. Change in salinity? Dead shrimp and sponges. Change in pretty much anything? Dead anemones. Not enough calcium? Dead corals. PH too high? Dead everything. Too low? Dead everything.

Now imagine that life in the seas is the foundation of all life on Earth. Pretend that all life on Earth still depends on life in the seas. Then, pretend we are all inhabitants of a giant reef tank.
;D

Arkie
06-04-2013, 10:33 AM
We have 7 billion fish in our tank. What's the capacity?

Rohirrim
06-04-2013, 11:49 AM
We have 7 billion fish in our tank. What's the capacity?

Well, most people advocate for one inch of fish per gallon of tank water. So you do the math. ;D

Since we haven't even identified all the fish in the sea yet, I'm guessing that count is low by few hundred billion or so. The annual catch of herring equals about 307,000 tons per year, so...

broncocalijohn
06-04-2013, 11:58 AM
Take the head-in-the-sand approach of Cut and Beavis and multiply it by 100 to get the position of the Republicans. They are not defending any scientific ground. They are defending a religion.

Some would say that these scientist are the one with defending a religion.

BroncoBeavis
06-04-2013, 01:17 PM
I know, right. Roh makes it sound just like Santie Claus.

Everybody who refuses to believe in global climate change LOL

Problem is, believing in 'global climate change' is like believing in water. Climate changes. Significantly. It always has, and for the most part, we have a very poor understanding why. It's the nature of the beast.

In many ways, Global Warming Scientology can be thought of as a kind of global narcissism. If Earth doesn't lock itself in stasis from the first moment we became really able to measure something on a global scale, we reach out and latch onto anything we might've done to 'cause' it. The problem is in separating out what we 'caused' from what just happens. Because very significant changes do 'just happen'

Something caused the end of an ice age up to only 10-15,000 years ago. But we don't really know what. And if we can't even really explain huge changes in the past, what exactly makes us think we have any idea what's coming in the future? This proposition that a 0.005% change in atmospheric concentration of CO2 will reliably overwhelm an ecosystem already capable of such wild swings is ridiculous.

W*GS
06-04-2013, 01:21 PM
Some would say that these scientist are the one with defending a religion.

Nope.

W*GS
06-04-2013, 01:25 PM
Problem is, believing in 'global climate change' is like believing in water. Climate changes. Significantly. It always has, and for the most part, we have a very poor understanding why. It's the nature of the beast.

"Very poor"? No.

In many ways, Global Warming Scientology can be thought of as a kind of global narcissism. If Earth doesn't lock itself in stasis from the first moment we became really able to measure something on a global scale, we reach out and latch onto anything we might've done to 'cause' it. The problem is in separating out what we 'caused' from what just happens. Because very significant changes do 'just happen'

Outside of the occasional asteroid hit, climate changes occur slowly by human measures - thousands of years for a "fast" change, hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years for a "slow" change.

Something caused the end of an ice age up to only 10-15,000 years ago. But we don't really know what.

Milankovitch cycles
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles)

And if we can't even really explain huge changes in the past, what exactly makes us think we have any idea what's coming in the future? This proposition that a 0.005% change in atmospheric concentration of CO2 will reliably overwhelm an ecosystem already capable of such wild swings is ridiculous.

It's not a "0.005%" change - it's a 40% change in about 150 years. That's a huge change.

http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/files/2013/03/Antarctic800000yCO2-400x294.png

BroncoBeavis
06-04-2013, 02:12 PM
Milankovitch cycles
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles)

It's not really that simple. Theories are still just theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Origin_of_ice_age_theory



It's not a "0.005%" change - it's a 40% change in about 150 years. That's a huge change.

Atmospheric CO2 concentration went from 0.035% to 0.04% That's a .005% change in overall atmospheric concentration. Concentration is what matters. Not some arbitrary growth rate. For comparison... as a (more significant) GHG, methane has grown at a much much faster rate. But methane's concentration (the important part) is far lower. Which is why CO2 gets all the buzz. Your "growth" number is trying to have it both ways. Otherwise your war should be on Cows. :)

http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/files/2013/03/Antarctic800000yCO2-400x294.png

I know this is always a fan favorite, but I could show an even more alarming chart detailing the number of McDonalds' franchises worldwide over the same time period.

A happening as B happened does nothing to prove that A caused B.

W*GS
06-04-2013, 03:11 PM
It's not really that simple. Theories are still just theories.

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word 'hypothesis').

You're using "theory" in the 2nd bolded sense above, I'm using it in the 1st bolded sense.

The giveaway is your use of "just".

Atmospheric CO2 concentration went from 0.035% to 0.04% That's a .005% change in overall atmospheric concentration.

It went from 280 ppm to 400 ppm - a 40% increase. Seeing as how CO2 concentrations haven't been above ~300ppm in the last 800,000 years (at least), we're in uncharted territory for us as a species.

Concentration is what matters. Not some arbitrary growth rate. For comparison... as a (more significant) GHG, methane has grown at a much much faster rate. But methane's concentration (the important part) is far lower. Which is why CO2 gets all the buzz. Your "growth" number is trying to have it both ways. Otherwise your war should be on Cows.

There isn't enough CH4 in the atmosphere at this time to keep the surface temperature annual average above 0℃ - that's CO2's job. Without that CO2, eventually the oceans freeze solid all the way to the bottom.

I know this is always a fan favorite, but I could show an even more alarming chart detailing the number of McDonalds' franchises worldwide over the same time period.

The number of McDonald's doesn't change the energy balance of the climate system. CO2 concentration does, very strongly.

A happening as B happened does nothing to prove that A caused B.

If you don't think CO2 has anything to do with the energy balance, then you must also think the earth is flat.

http://co2now.org/images/stories/ipcc/ar4-wg1/faq_1.1_fig_1_energy_balance.gif
Estimate of the Earth’s annual and global mean energy balance. Over the long term, the amount of incoming solar radiation absorbed by the Earth and atmosphere is balanced by the Earth and atmosphere releasing the same amount of outgoing longwave radiation. About half of the incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. This energy is transferred to the atmosphere by warming the air in contact with the surface (thermals), by evapotranspiration and by longwave radiation that is absorbed by clouds and greenhouse gases. The atmosphere in turn radiates longwave energy back to Earth as well as out to space. Source: Kiehl and Trenberth (1997). (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0477(1997)078%3C0197%3AEAGMEB%3E2.0.CO%3B2)

chadta
06-04-2013, 03:17 PM
http://www.infowars.com/al-gore-backlash-why-environmentalists-are-celebrating-rising-co2-levels/

W*GS
06-04-2013, 03:21 PM
http://www.infowars.com/al-gore-backlash-why-environmentalists-are-celebrating-rising-co2-levels/

Already saw that crap. (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3855953&postcount=191)

chadta
06-04-2013, 03:24 PM
so everybody else's links are crap, but anybody that doesnt bow down to the gospel you preach is crazy

gotcha

W*GS
06-04-2013, 03:31 PM
so everybody else's links are crap, but anybody that doesnt bow down to the gospel you preach is crazy

gotcha

These are not equal:

International Association of Geodesy (http://www.iag-aig.org/)

and

The Flat Earth Society (http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/)

BroncoBeavis
06-04-2013, 03:32 PM
There isn't enough CH4 in the atmosphere at this time to keep the surface temperature annual average above 0℃ - that's CO2's job..

Actually it's mostly H2O's job (by a factor of thousands). CO2 is just a supporting actor playing a side role. How much so is the difficult part to answer.


The number of McDonald's doesn't change the energy balance of the climate system. CO2 concentration does, very strongly.

Untrue. McDonalds has an effect on the energy balance of the climate system. That can't be denied. The question (much like with CO2) is how much. :)

If you don't think CO2 has anything to do with the energy balance, then you must also think the earth is flat.

yawn

Arkie
06-04-2013, 04:15 PM
Well, most people advocate for one inch of fish per gallon of tank water. So you do the math. ;D

Since we haven't even identified all the fish in the sea yet, I'm guessing that count is low by few hundred billion or so. The annual catch of herring equals about 307,000 tons per year, so...

I'm only talking about humans since we are focused on man-made climate change. Humans passed our capacity a long time ago. The earth can't support 7 billion people without degrading the environment.

W*GS
06-04-2013, 04:23 PM
Actually it's mostly H2O's job (by a factor of thousands). CO2 is just a supporting actor playing a side role. How much so is the difficult part to answer.

Water vapor isn't well-mixed, is easily saturated and precipitates out, and has a very short lifetime.

CO2 is well-mixed, cannot precipitate out, and has a very long lifetime.

Water vapour: feedback or forcing? (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142)

The ratio of radiative "effectiveness" isn't "thousands".

Rohirrim
06-04-2013, 05:05 PM
I'm only talking about humans since we are focused on man-made climate change. Humans passed our capacity a long time ago. The earth can't support 7 billion people without degrading the environment.

Yep.

The reef tank analogy just points out that we will not kill the planet. We may end up with an ocean full of nothing but jellyfish and algae, but it will still be an ocean. Right?

BroncoBeavis
06-04-2013, 07:20 PM
Water vapor isn't well-mixed, is easily saturated and precipitates out, and has a very short lifetime.

CO2 is well-mixed, cannot precipitate out, and has a very long lifetime.

Water vapour: feedback or forcing? (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142)

The ratio of radiative "effectiveness" isn't "thousands".

The vapor's lifetime doesn't make any difference so long as the global concentration remains the same. One water molecule being replaced by another does nothing to alleviate the overall heat-trapping effect.

cutthemdown
06-05-2013, 02:31 AM
So what can we do to mitigate the changes? Lets face it, the Earths co2 levels won't be dropping soon, or maybe ever. If the Earth even managed to level off it would be an accomplishment that I quite frankly don't see adding up.

People talk a lot about climate change and how to put out less co2 but you dont hear much about if places are going to flood more, IE our big rivers, coastal areas, are we planning on how to protect them? maybe we should think about big water storage resevoirs those rivers can divert water into. having more water stored would be smart anyways right. It would be hella expensive but will al gore cool the Earth in time to not need it?

There could big money to be made in technologies that help adapt to a warming Earth.

cutthemdown
06-05-2013, 02:32 AM
W*gs by what yr do you think the world will start decreasing the amount of co2. Do you have a guess? does anyone?

chadta
06-05-2013, 03:24 AM
These are not equal:

International Association of Geodesy (http://www.iag-aig.org/)

and

The Flat Earth Society (http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/)

all fine and dandy, you dont like the link, but while I'm no scientist I do remember that plants breathe CO2, so having more of it would be a good thing if we want more plants no ?

Farmers have been pumping greenhouses full of CO2 for years. The government here actually teaches how to do it http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm I know its not as good as the site you listed, but really dood

W*GS
06-05-2013, 06:58 AM
all fine and dandy, you dont like the link, but while I'm no scientist I do remember that plants breathe CO2, so having more of it would be a good thing if we want more plants no ?

CO2 isn't the limiting factor in plant growth. There's precipitation, temperature, seasonality (winters are shortening and summers lengthening), soil nutrients, pollinators, etc., etc.

Besides, it's not like only the plants we want will grow more with more CO2 - weeds will too.

Rohirrim
06-05-2013, 07:09 AM
CO2 isn't the limiting factor in plant growth. There's precipitation, temperature, seasonality (winters are shortening and summers lengthening), soil nutrients, pollinators, etc., etc.

Besides, it's not like only the plants we want will grow more with more CO2 - weeds will too.

All we need to do is learn to enjoy eating weeds. It's the Right Wing solution. ;D

Dr. ZISKA: One of the things that we think is occurring is that as carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere - carbon dioxide, as everyone knows, is a basic greenhouse gas, but it's also plant food. And plants take that carbon, and they convert it into sugars and carbohydrates and so forth.

But not all plants respond the same way to that resource, and we think that vines, particularly vines like poison ivy or kudzu or other noxious weeds, seem to show a much stronger response to the change in CO2 than other plant species. So on average, the poison ivy plant of, say, 1901, can grow up to 50 to 60 percent larger as of 2010 just from the change in CO2 alone, all other things being equal. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128650169

Not only do some food plants, like wheat, actually decline under increased CO2, plant eating insects seem to proliferate. So, we'll need to add them to our diet as well.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

Mmmmm. Weeds, bugs and jellyfish. What's on the Barby? Ha!

W*GS
06-05-2013, 07:16 AM
The vapor's lifetime doesn't make any difference so long as the global concentration remains the same. One water molecule being replaced by another does nothing to alleviate the overall heat-trapping effect.

As CO2 increases, the atmosphere warms and can hold more H2O. It's a positive feedback.

BroncoBeavis
06-05-2013, 08:25 AM
As CO2 increases, the atmosphere warms and can hold more H2O. It's a positive feedback.

All true. But everything is a question of how much. Your ass gas is a global warming positive feedback. Establishing that fact doesn't mean we should automatically staple your hole closed.

In th real world, the open questions are:

How significant is CO2 to overall greenhouse gas cycle and
How does the earth respond to increased atmospheric CO2 and Water Vapor.

In conjunction, these questions are very difficult to answer. Because they play with and against each other (and millions of other factors) in ways we don't fully understand.

But in the meantime, even if the US liquidated itself and stopped producing CO2 altogether, it would be a drop in the bucket compared to the CO2 being produced or about to be produced worldwide.

So in summary... the bad news... you're not going to meaningfully impact global CO2 concentration with any number of political schemes. If emissions decline it will likely be because of either a global economic downturn or a slowing of population growth.

And the good news... There are reasons to believe that the effects of higher CO2 concentrations aren't going to be nearly as catastrophic as they were once made out to be (and still made out to be by some)

The biggest doomsday models have been shown to be hopelessly inaccurate already. Yes, just like any crackpot apocalypse-predictor, they'll revise their 'model' to say that "sure doom didn't show up yesterday like I predicted, but it's still coming next Month! Unless you do exactly as I tell you!"

But they have no power to affect anything on a global scale. Only to potentially convince a nation or two to screw themselves while the rest of the world laughs it off.

Arkie
06-05-2013, 11:01 AM
These are not equal:

International Association of Geodesy (http://www.iag-aig.org/)

and

The Flat Earth Society (http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/)

No need to post the flat earth society. Nobody believes that. Most of us believe that a problem exists, but we disagree on the solution. I don't think any of your solutions are realistic to implement.

Rohirrim
06-05-2013, 11:46 AM
All true. But everything is a question of how much. Your ass gas is a global warming positive feedback. Establishing that fact doesn't mean we should automatically staple your hole closed.

In th real world, the open questions are:

How significant is CO2 to overall greenhouse gas cycle and
How does the earth respond to increased atmospheric CO2 and Water Vapor.

In conjunction, these questions are very difficult to answer. Because they play with and against each other (and millions of other factors) in ways we don't fully understand.

But in the meantime, even if the US liquidated itself and stopped producing CO2 altogether, it would be a drop in the bucket compared to the CO2 being produced or about to be produced worldwide.

So in summary... the bad news... you're not going to meaningfully impact global CO2 concentration with any number of political schemes. If emissions decline it will likely be because of either a global economic downturn or a slowing of population growth.

And the good news... There are reasons to believe that the effects of higher CO2 concentrations aren't going to be nearly as catastrophic as they were once made out to be (and still made out to be by some)

The biggest doomsday models have been shown to be hopelessly inaccurate already. Yes, just like any crackpot apocalypse-predictor, they'll revise their 'model' to say that "sure doom didn't show up yesterday like I predicted, but it's still coming next Month! Unless you do exactly as I tell you!"

But they have no power to affect anything on a global scale. Only to potentially convince a nation or two to screw themselves while the rest of the world laughs it off.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fL6wbsGx9qw?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

W*GS
06-05-2013, 12:36 PM
No need to post the flat earth society. Nobody believes that. Most of us believe that a problem exists, but we disagree on the solution. I don't think any of your solutions are realistic to implement.

What solutions have I proposed?

BroncoBeavis
06-05-2013, 12:46 PM
What solutions have I proposed?

Carbon trading?

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21575771-environmental-lunacy-europe-fuel-future

Undeterred, Drax, also in Britain and one of Europe’s largest coal-fired power stations, said it would convert three of its six boilers to burn wood. When up and running in 2016 they will generate 12.5 terawatt hours of electricity a year. This energy will get a subsidy, called a renewable obligation certificate, worth £45 ($68) a megawatt hour (MWh), paid on top of the market price for electricity. At current prices, calculates Roland Vetter, the chief analyst at CF Partners, Europe’s largest carbon-trading firm, Drax could be getting £550m a year in subsidies for biomass after 2016—more than its 2012 pretax profit of £190m.

With incentives like these, European firms are scouring the Earth for wood. Europe consumed 13m tonnes of wood pellets in 2012, according to International Wood Markets Group, a Canadian company. On current trends, European demand will rise to 25m-30m a year by 2020.

That's right. Create an economic Slash n' Burn incentive. It takes a special kind of central "planner" to create these kinds of incentives. LOL

W*GS
06-05-2013, 12:47 PM
[...]

So, as with most rejectionists, your beef is with potential policy actions, not the science itself.

However, you put the cart before the horse, and since you find some of those policies unpalatable, you reject the science.

The science can only inform what we choose to do (if anything) - it can't dictate our choice(s).

Accept the science, then go from there. Denying the science gets you nowhere.

BroncoBeavis
06-05-2013, 12:56 PM
So, as with most rejectionists, your beef is with potential policy actions, not the science itself.

However, you put the cart before the horse, and since you find some of those policies unpalatable, you reject the science.

The science can only inform what we choose to do (if anything) - it can't dictate our choice(s).

Accept the science, then go from there. Denying the science gets you nowhere.

At some point it's rational to come to the realization that mankind's planetary engineering from ignorance might only do more harm than good.

Just as the next-ice-age'ers talked about painting the ice caps black back in the 1970's, now we're watching people slash and burn forests in the name of 'renewable carbon-neutral' energy.

If I may quote the great master Oogway,

"One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it" :)

When it comes down to it. "don't do anything crazy" should always be Rule #1.

W*GS
06-05-2013, 12:56 PM
Carbon trading?

Nope.

Revenue-neutral carbon tax at the wellhead/mine.

Let the market and entrepreneurs figure it out from there.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3855200&postcount=190

BroncoBeavis
06-05-2013, 01:01 PM
Nope.

Revenue-neutral carbon tax at the wellhead/mine.

Let the market and entrepreneurs figure it out from there.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3855200&postcount=190

As we've seen, the market will move onto the trees for energy so long as it pays. It's hilarious that a man of logic thinks some kind of effective World Energy Gatekeeper could ever be erected.

W*GS
06-05-2013, 01:06 PM
As we've seen, the market will move onto the trees for energy so long as it pays. It's hilarious that a man of logic thinks some kind of effective World Energy Gatekeeper could ever be erected.

Burning wood isn't carbon-wise.