Climate Change

[Trim50]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

"a BMW is less responsible than a Big Mac for "climate change," that conveniently imprecise name for our peril. This is because the world meat industry produces 18 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, more than transportation produces. Nitrous oxide in manure (warming effect: 296 times greater than that of carbon) and methane from animal flatulence (23 times greater) mean that "a 16-oz. T-bone is like a Hummer on a plate."

George F. Will - Fuzzy Climate Math - washingtonpost.com

Pure cr@p! Water vapor constitutes 90% of all greehouse gases, so how could methane or nitrous oxide account for 18%!?

I do agree however, that the warming effect is many time greater than Carbon Dioxide. In fact, CO2 has vertually no mechanism for increasing atmospheric temperature.

[camaraderie]

Trim50...
The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes 9-26%; methane, which causes 4-9%, and ozone, which causes 3-7%. It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive....From Wikipedia
************

I think you misinterperted WILL's column. He said the MEAT INDUSTRY is responsible for 18% of the world's greenhouse gas...NOT that methane and nitrous oxide were 18% . My GUESS is that the 18% is what producing a cow to putting meat on your table contributes to the total of green house gas.

Anyway...I agree with your comments on CO2.

[Trim50]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

Trim50...
carbon dioxide, which causes 9-26%; ....From Wikipedia
************

.

Ah yes, Wikipedia...the worlds least accurate scientific journal! Carbon Dioxide is a very poor green house gas. It absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of frequencies, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. About 8% of the available black body radiation is picked up by these "fingerprint" frequencies of CO2.

[camaraderie]

Trim... I simply used wiki cause it was convenient to make the point that water vapor does NOT cause 90% of warming which you stated and that there was room for bovine flatulence in the equation! (G)...
Anyway the SOURCES for that wiki quote are:

1. ^ Kiehl, J. T.; Kevin E. Trenberth (February 1997). "Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget" (PDF). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78 (2): 197-208. Retrieved on 2006-05-01.
2. ^ Water vapour: feedback or forcing?. RealClimate (6 Apr 2005). Retrieved on 2006-05-01.

I think those would be considered "scientific"... nevertheless feel free to dissect them as you please.
I personally do not believe in man-made gobal warming but do think it is possible that we are in a natural warming cycle.
I do not consider CO2 to be a pollutant or a factor in warming as everything I have read says that increases in CO2 FOLLOW warming rather than cause it. I'm not sure from your responses whether you agree with me on that or not...but I think so!

[Ex-Calif]

I just got a note from Al Gore. He says that this thread - now at 200 posts - has used so many electrons that the global temperature has increased .0002 degc.

Has anyone in this thread solved Global Warming yet?

[seafox]

Could do with some bloody warming here at the moment......brrrrrrr

Cold arse in New Zealand

[zardinuk]

One word...



Waterworld.

[zardinuk]

On a serious note, people have been using scare tactics to move their agenda forward for a long time. The global population bomb, CFC's, pesticides, and now this. They have been buzzing about the weather for quite a while too. Remember ACID RAIN? Woooooooo, scary. I respectfully request an accurate climate model that proves that the world is going to be doomed. Hurricane models aren't accurate, and I'm sure the more primitive global climate models are even less accurate.

I wouldn't want people to become too obsessed with the carbon in the pollution, and ignore other harmful substances. I'm all for cleaner air. I do think we have crossed a line on this one, I visited Europe recently and they are all crazy for "green" stuff over there, and it seems the US is headed in that direction.

[Tspringer]

If we cut per capita global carbon emissions by 30% over the next 40 years (a number that is all but impossible), overall carbon emissions will still be significantly higher than they are today.

The problem is not greenhouse gas emissions (assuming that the entire global warming being caused by human influences arguement is correct). Like animal flatulance or methane emissions, carbon emissions are merely a simpton of the real problem: population growth.

So until folks like Al Gore get real and start advocating global population control strategies in conjunction with efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions I consider the entire movement a complete waste of time and effort.

Assuming that we are not going to limit human beings freedom of choice relative to procreation and thus regardless of cutting per capita emissions we are "doomed", I suggest the planet should focus on developing massive new technology aimed at actively correcting the issue rather than hopelessly trying to address its symptoms.

We need monumental scale atmospheric processing plants or such....



Terry

[zardinuk]

Tspringer, not only is population control atrocious, it is unnecessary.

Populations have a natural tendency to have less children; as wealth increases. We aught to be encouraging wealth.

The Population Bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Total fertility rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Tspringer]

And as wealth increases, so does gross per capita carbon emissions. Im pretty sure a new SUV for all the poor of the planet isnt the answer.

While I too am a Star Trek fan, the fantasy of the complete elimination of global poverty leading to natural population control and thus a solution to the Global Warming problem is just that. Such an accomplishment would be predicated on the elimination of Govt. corruption on a global scale and the eradication of entitlement mentality. Neither is likely.


Tery

[zardinuk]

Terry,

Clean living is not a fantasy, it's very likely to come about in the next few decades, first in the highly industrialized nations. The price of renewable energy has steadily gone down, while the price of fossil fuels goes up. Your SUV nightmare isn't even a possibility, there would not be enough fuel.

Poverty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poverty is on it's way out the door. If you look at historical trends, the more industrialized a nation becomes, the lower the poverty rate. Also think that real estate prices will continue to go up, that will have an even larger effect than wealth alone, unless you expect people to raise kids in their kitchen cabinets.

So have I convinced you that population control is a lousy idea?

[Tspringer]

Originally Posted by zardinuk

Poverty is on it's way out the door. If you look at historical trends, the more industrialized a nation becomes, the lower the poverty rate. Also think that real estate prices will continue to go up, that will have an even larger effect than wealth alone, unless you expect people to raise kids in their kitchen cabinets.

So have I convinced you that population control is a lousy idea?

Well, No. But then again I never thought population control was a good idea never mind that its simply not possible.

Poverty on its way out the door?! LOL, thats a good one. Clearly you flunked politics 101. There will always be poverty. Without the impoverished where is the justification for politicians to pursue the eternal strategy their calling is founded upon:

"As long as I promise to rob Peter in order to pay Paul, I can count on the support (ie. vote) of Paul"

So... Paul will always be locked in poverty. Should his plight improve significantly the politicians will merely recalculate how "poverty" is defined in order to maintain the poverty stricken population. Ever notice how poverty here in the US is radically different from poverty in Sudan for example?

As to a general growth in overall wealth and such.... check on the Govt. entitlement spending shortfalls over the next 40 years. Total US entitlement program funding shortages exceed $50 Trillion in that time frame. That is more than the entire specie of the US today. When the US Govt. monetizes our national debt while attempting to meet these absurd obligations and in the process destroys the US currency system what impact is that going to have on the destruction of global poverty?

No, our currently wildly popular global belief in blank check entitlement systems is ultimately going to yield MORE poverty, not less.

YMMV

I do however agree with you on clean living. It is one of the biggest appeals Cruising as a lifestyle has for me.


Terry

[zardinuk]

Originally Posted by Tspringer

Poverty on its way out the door?! LOL, thats a good one. Clearly you flunked politics 101. There will always be poverty. Without the impoverished where is the justification for politicians to pursue the eternal strategy their calling is founded upon:

Actually, I did take pol sci 101, even though it had nothing to do with my major (Economics). Yes, a dirty game it is.

As for fiscal/monetary strategy and the currency system, I think people too often make the mistake of comparing national debt to what they know about personal debt. The national debt never needs to repaid. Personal debt does, because eventually you die and you want to have a little (+) before you die, but not true for the country. If you have a surplus, it means your money is likely being invested in other countries, but yet the United States has always been a great place to invest your money, our stock market is among the best. We do good things with foreign money in this country, if it weren't so, then we wouldn't have the level of investment that we do.

The world bank (which the United States has the biggest say in) has suggested that the United States devalue their currency, we have total control over the value of our currency, why do we devalue it? The effects of devaluation: less Americans buy foreign goods, more foreigners buy American goods, manufacturing increases. There are other secondary effects, some of which may not be beneficial. So it is a matter of balance.

[Trim50]

This one still kills me! I will need to use this wording sometime. From the renowned authority on Global Warming IPCC

From the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) working group
"Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors".

In other words, we know what we want to find. We haven’t found it yet. However, we know it is somewhere in the error margins of measurements.

If you are interested, you can join the "Technical Debate" at:
Cruiserlog's Sailing Forums and Free Cruising Crewfinder (Powered by Invision Power Board)
The Poop Deck, "Glaobal Warming...a new religion?