Climate Change

[delmarrey]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The two single largest contributors to CO2 in the atmosphere are fossil-fuel burning electric power plants, and car/truck emissions.

I wonder why container ships and airliners are not in there. From My research a (1) container ship can use around 85,000 tons of fuel annually. How many are out there? That's as much a whole city.
http://www02.abb.com/global/seitp/seitp161.nsf/0/11783c62f33da804c1257082003da336/$file/CRP+Machinery+Comparison+theory.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4503686.stm

And airliners,

According to British Airways, a 747-400 plane cruises at 576 mph (927
km/h), burns 12,788 liters (3378 US gallons) of fuel per hour, and
carries 409 passengers when full:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=48121



And how many of these are out there?

How can they dare put down the small mans automobile and not the big business fuel guzzlers. $$$$$$$$$$ Somebody is getting paid off!

I'm doing my part!!! Most of what I buy comes from right here on this continent! Except fuel

[GordMay]

Honest, I didn’t take a dime!

According to the U.S. EPA at:
Human-Related Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide
Carbon Dioxide - Human-Related Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide | Climate Change - Greenhouse Gas Emissions | U.S. EPA

The process of generating electricity is the single largest source of CO2 emissions in the United States, representing 38 percent of all CO2 emissions.
The transportation sector is the second largest source of CO2 emissions in the U.S. Almost all of the energy consumed in the transportation sector is petroleum based, including gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Automobiles and light-duty trucks account for almost two-thirds of emissions from the transportation sector and emissions have steadily grown since 1990. Other sources of transportation emissions are freight trucks, aircraft, trains and boats.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics at:
U.S. Transportation-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions: (2001)
http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2001/html/chapter_08_table_01_239.html

Automobiles contribute over 3 times the CO2 that Aircraft contribute.

According to the European Union at:
Transport and CO2:
SCADPlus: Transport and CO2

Passenger cars account for about half the transport-related CO2 emissions in the European Union.

However, aircraft emissions (at higher altitudes) have a much larger global warming effect than those produced at ground level. The factor is sometimes quotes as about 3x’s. This brings aircraft nearer to the automobile as effective contributors to global warming.

Per passenger-mile, air travel may carry the highest carbon burden (footprint).

[Capct]

Originally Posted by Benny

Capct - was painting the bottom of my boat today so could not answer your challenge until now however, I trust that Gord's reply was sufficient emperical evidence to at least receive an acknowledgement from you that human activity is contributing greatly to the climate change problem - thanks Gord. In one of my earliest posts on this thread, I posted a link as well.

Some other posts are interesting in that the pursuit of fact and logic in this thread has suddenly been focused on environmental activists - I guess if you do not acknowledge the overwhelming scientific evidence out there then you can attempt to confusitcate the obvious by casting aspersions on the dasturdly treehuggers. I'll tell you this tact has certainly been a pivotal argument to persuade me to give some credence to the naysayers stance - not.

I have stated as clearly as possible that my view is to try to stem the effects of man's contribution to climate change and general pollution - something we should have done quite a few years ago more aggressively. There is no environmental downside to doing this. It would seem to me that the very people who say this is an alrmists reaction to the problem are the real alarmists ie: it will cost too much; not enougth time; poorer nations will continue to pollute anyhow; it will never work; this is natural and we can't do anything about it etc. These changes can be made effectively over time and Kyoto is an attempt to do that. It is not surprising that the US with one of the highest per capita greenhouse gas emmission rates and Canada has now backed out of our Kyoto commitment
in favour of their new less stringent targets. Unfortunately, this may cause other countries to follow suit and give countries not signed to the accord another excuse not to.

The real reasons there is insufficient commitment to climate change measures are greed and political survival. As I predicted earlier and still believe that common people without these agendas will force businesses and governments to change and put the resources and action into this issue for it is a much simpler solution for the masses out there who are not caught up in the economic and political oneupmanship of the issue. They care mostly about leaving the world a better place for their children and children's children and no fossil fuel tycoon or his bought and paid for politicians will be able to stem the tide of global determination to deal effectively with this issue. It will cost less and be least disruptive to our economies if we start now and personally, I think the fossil fuel companies who are making an absolute killing should lead the way and put some big money into these efforts. Like the old adage - you can pay now or pay more later - but we may also be paying for the fallout of climate change as well.

Goodness me ....how the hell do you come up with such an incredible leap.
First of all you or Gord has not shown any evidence that the rise in temperature... a whopping 1 degree ....is because of mans activity.You have not shown that.Then like most liberals who can't field a valid argument ....you extrapolate and turn CO2 of which 98% is naturally produced into a pollutant because you or anyone else cant show that it is the culprit that caused the rise in temperature.....and you try to turn a natural part of the earths cycle into some kind of demon by calling CO2 a pollutant.
The biggest contributor to greenhouse gasses is water vapour....Al Gore never mentions that...but if he did he would certainly confuse it with pollution

The liberal left is still trying to stick to the BS line that CO2 produces global warming.When legitimate science backed by the historical record knows temperature rises before CO2 does.

The USA never signed Kyoto so alluding that they backed out of the ponzi scheme is deliberately misleading.They were never dumb enough to sign on

In the meantime

Show us scientific proof that Co2 has caused the temperature of the earth to rise one degree.Not a signed consensus of like minded lefists

This is the entire problem....benny cant give you an honest answer and neither can types like David Suzuki.Simply because they dont have the empirical evidence to back up the BS....or we would have seen it.

[NoTies]

A successful farmer in for the longhaul does not keep taking from his land without returning something to it (nitrate, re-seeding, irrigationg etc.) Same goes for a forsetry operator or any other number of people who rely on natural resources to make their living.
Are you prepared to risk the comfort & health of this generation (and the planet) and many more to follow by ignoring evidence that more and more people are becoming convinced by? Or are you going to pick & choose the evidence that is out there that suits your values and carry on your complacent way in your various gas guzzling forms of transprotation?

[rebel heart]

For whatever it's worth...

I don't see it really being a bad thing that climate change is becoming a popular tone in a lot of threads. Invariably people talk about finances and relationships in some threads, and it's not like those subjects should be confined to seperate threads.

I'm sure you're consider finances and relationships to be rather glued to the reality of sailing and living on the water. I'm just glad that our environment is becoming as common place to talk about as alcohol, money, and sex. Should have happened a while ago.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Capct

Goodness me ....how the hell do you come up with such an incredible leap.
... Then like most liberals who can't field a valid argument ....you extrapolate and turn CO2 of which 98% is naturally produced ...
The biggest contributor to greenhouse gasses is water vapour....
... The liberal left is still trying to stick to the BS line that CO2 produces global ...

It is clear that atmospheric CO2 is not the only influence on global climate.

Although the Earth’s atmosphere consists mainly of oxygen and nitrogen, neither plays a significant role in enhancing the GreenHouse Effect (GHE), because both are essentially transparent to terrestrial radiation. The greenhouse effect is primarily a function of the concentration (proportion, by weight or volume) of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other trace gases in the atmosphere, that absorb the terrestrial radiation leaving the surface of the Earth. Changes in the atmospheric concentrations of these GreenHouse Gases (GHG) can alter the balance of energy transfers between the atmosphere, space, land, and the oceans. A gauge of these changes is called Radiative Forcing*.

* The Global Warming Potential (GWP) of a gas is defined as the Radiative Forcing (that is the additional radiative power that the gas is sending back to the ground) of a given quantity of gas, cumulated over a given period, generally 100 years. This value is actually never given as an absolute figure, but relatively to CO2. The Relative GWP of a gas is, therefore, "how much more" (or how much less) it "enhances the greenhouse effect over 100 years" compared to a similar quantity of CO2 emitted at the same time.
A GWP is not usually calculated for Water vapour, largely because it is not relevant, as human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations, and it’s GWP is primarily of a feedback nature (rather than a forcing effect), because it spends far less time* in the atmosphere. Water stays in the atmosphere for only a few days, while other greenhouse gases linger for decades or centuries (CO2 can stay in the atmosphere for 50 to 200 years). While human activities do not directly add significant amounts of water vapor to the atmosphere, warmer air contains more water vapor. Since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, global warming will be further enhanced by the increased amounts of water vapor. This sort of indirect effect is called a positive feedback.

Water is the most fundamental component of the Earth's climate. Its presence in all three phases (liquid, solid and gas) defines our planet in a very profound way. Water vapor is also the most abundant* of the GreenHouse Gases, and is the dominant contributor (about 66%) to the natural GreenHouse Effect.

* Water Vapor makes up between >0 & 4% of the atmosphere, compared to only about 0.037% for Carbon Dioxide.

However, just because water vapor is the most abundant gas in creating the natural greenhouse effect, does not mean that anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gases are unimportant. [u]Carbon dioxide is responsible for about 60% of the worldwide anthropogenic greenhouse effect, and about 80% of the GHE in industrial countries.

Over the past ten thousand years, the amounts of the various greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere remained relatively stable, until a few centuries ago, when the concentrations of many of these gases began to increase due to: industrialization, increasing demand for energy, rising population, and changing land use and human settlement patterns.

Water vapour, being a reactive GHG, with a short atmospheric lifetime of about 1 week, is in a fairly stable balance. If you pump out a whole load of extra water vapour, it won't stay in the atmosphere; it would condense as rain/snow and we'd be back to where we started. If you sucked the atmosphere dry of moisture, more would evaporate from the oceans..

The Bush administration should not be confused with the “liberal left”. I refer you back to my previous link to “The U.S. Climate Change Science Program for Fiscal Year 2008"
(A Supplement to the President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2008 ~ a distinctly “conservative” viewpoint)
Goto: Preview of "Our Changing Planet. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program for Fiscal Year 2008"

[ssullivan]

Gord's got it right. I had posted elsewhere about the environmental advantages to living aboard, citing another source that the coal fired power plants we use in the USA are indeed the #1 cause for pollution and emissions here in the USA. Every time you use anything electric, thinking you're polluting less, you aren't. It's for the most part, running on coal.

Second, Del is also correct in citing that airliners are a major source. I found it highly comical that Richard Branson developed a sort of "X Prize" for a novel way to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, when he's one of the top contributors. My proposal to him would be to close his business and take up gardening.

This issue is not a partisan issue though. That's where Captct is going in the wrong direction, I think. While I agree with his points (it can't be scientifically proven, using the Scientific Method, that man caused any change in climate), I don't think it's a political issue.

We need to clean up our acts in general, not just when it comes to global warming. We are wasters of everything. Spend a whole day thinking about what you personally waste/contribute to pollution and you'll be amazed. We had no idea until we moved aboard and had to track every tiny thing in detail.

As I said early on though... the Earth has a lot of buffered systems... she will take care of any extremes through a counter-action. Man produces too much waste and/or raises the temp to much (if he is indeed doing that), and she'll take care of it. We'll all die. Problem solved and everything will go back to normal.

[GordMay]

The IPCC has estimated that aviation is responsible for around 3.5% of anthropogenic climate change, a figure which includes both CO2 and non-CO2 induced effects. Their central case estimate, is that aviation’s contribution could grow to 5% of the total contribution by 2050, if action is not taken to tackle these emissions, though the highest scenario is 15%. Moreover, if other industries achieve significant cuts in their own greenhouse gas emissions, aviation’s share as a proportion of the remaining emissions could also rise.

The US GAO* found that, in the United States, aviation emissions accounted for about three percent of the greenhouse gases and other emissions that contribute to the global warming phenomenon. While this percentage is small in relative terms (other transportation sources contribute 23 percent, and other industrial emissions account for 41 percent) aviation emissions are potentially significant for a number of reasons:

* Jet aircraft emissions are deposited directly into the upper atmosphere and some of them have a greater warming effect than gases emitted closer to the surface, such as automobile exhaust.
* The primary gas emitted by jet aircraft engines is carbon dioxide, which can survive in the atmosphere up to 100 years.
* Carbon dioxide, combined with other exhaust gases and particulates emitted from jet engines, could have two to four times as great an impact on the atmosphere as carbon dioxide emissions alone.
* The growing demand for jet air service is likely to generate more emissions that cannot be offset by reductions achieved through technological improvements alone.
* The report recommended further research into the impact of jet exhaust on the global atmosphere to help guide the development of new aircraft engine technology. It also called upon governments to reduce emissions through improved air traffic control and regulatory and economic incentives.

* “AVIATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT
[i]Aviation’s Effects on the Global Atmosphere Are Potentially Significant and Expected to Grow
Goto: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/rc00057.pdf

BTW:
Didn’t Richard Branson (Virgin Atlantic Airways, etc) pledge to spend all the profits from his airline and rail businesses to fight global warming?

[ssullivan]

Originally Posted by GordMay

BTW:
Didn’t Richard Branson (Virgin Atlantic Airways, etc) pledge to spend all the profits from his airline and rail businesses to fight global warming?

I did not read that fact anywhere. I read about his X-Prize style contest. Big Richard Branson fan, huh?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by ssullivan

I did not read that fact anywhere. I read about his X-Prize style contest. Big Richard Branson fan, huh?

NOPE, not a Branson fan at all ... just thought I recalled reading that somewhere.

Apparently, I recalled correctly.

Branson commits profits to fight global warming

”The Virgin boss said he would commit all profits from his travel firms, such as airline Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Trains, over the next 10 years ...”

See the newsreports at:
BBC: BBC NEWS | Business | Branson makes $3bn climate pledge
ABC: Branson commits profits to fight global warming. 22/09/2006. ABC News Online

[Capct]

First of all...a comment to the fearmongers who say ******** like

"Are you prepared to risk the comfort & health of this generation (and the planet)"

Are you prepared to waste billions of dollars~ ruin economies~ kill millions in the third world by stunting their ability to feed themselves~prevent the modernization of the third world~
Shuffle billions from N.American industry to the European aristocracy....in the meantime taking the advantages of our western societies away from our children

and all of this based on nothing


what are you gonna tell your kids then ......ooooppps....sorry.We screwed your future and our economies forever based on liberal fearmongering.

Secondly it has become a political issue...In Canada we actually spend public money to study climate change and we fund studies in various fields of science.
In short they have no empirical evidence so they all get together and sign a consensus.The consensus is made up by people who have a vested interest in seeing the funding continue.The science is tied directly to funding which in turn is connected to politics and those who use the issue for political gain.ie Al Gore ,The Canadian liberal party,The Canadian conservative party,The green party and the NDP all use this issue for political gain without having a efffin shred of evidence.

David Suzuki is paid by our federal government in the form of grants to find it....or in the form of checks for his politically charged nature films by the government broadcasting corporation in Canada ~CBC.
He vets the people he will debate on the issue and will not debate anyone with articulated knowledge on the subject.
So whether or not we think it should be politicized or not.....Its way to late for that.IMHO It is what is driving it.It has become a business.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Capct

... all use this issue for political gain without having a efffin shred of evidence ...
... will not debate anyone with articulated knowledge on the subject ...

Your F’ing* diatribe would be much more convincing were it supported by any evidence.
* fulminating

I'm somewhat articulate, which doesn't suppose ANY expertise, on ANY subject, except the ability to coherently express thoughts, or ideas (even unfounded thoughts, & foolish ideas).

[Strygaldwir]

I have been a fishkeeper off and on for more than 40 years. During that time I spent an awfull lot of engery, time, money, research on understanding and managing small ecosystems. Some of the lessons I have learned are these:

You put too many organisms in an ecosystem too fast and drastic changes will result. Usually resulting in the death of most of the organisms in that ecosystem.

Organisms can assimilate a temendous amount of change over extended periods of time. They tend not to do well with rapid changes. Usually resulting in the death of most of the organisms in the ecosystem.

It is often diffucult to determine where a crissis point will occur. I have seen Ph crash (water gets Very acidic) after making the water very soft. On occassion, this has resulted in the death of most of the organisms in that ecosystem.

The fish were very much happier when I regularly removed excess waste from their echo system.

The fish were very much happier when the temperature maintained a relatively narrow band.

Too much food killed fish a lot faster than too little food.

The biggest thing I learned was that it was SO much easier to make small changes to prevent problem. Big changes, whether you thought they were good or not usually resulted in dead fish. It was much better for me to change 10% of the water every week than to wait 10 weeks and change it all! Usually, if I changed all the water, it resulted in dead fish. I only had to change all the water because I neglected to do something smaller a lot earlier.

We do live in a largely closed echosystem. Given enough organisms, we can cause drastic changes in the echo systems. It might not kill everything, but it may be difficult for everything, as it is now, to survive.

Is it our expectation that some one else will clean up our mess? Amazes me that folks with kids and grand kids expect them to do something about our excesses. Ah well...

[Benny]

Capct - so far I have not seen any empirical evidence on your contrarian position and since almost all of the scientific community who rely on that empirical evidence agree that man is influencing our climate - the onus is on you to prove them wrong and offer us an intelligent and factual position - not just ranting about your politicallly charged biases. I am neither leftist or liberal nor connected to any government or the CBC. I stated that Canada backed out of Kyoto not the US as they were never signed. Grouping all those on the planet who are trying to deal with global warming into a self serving and politically affiliated and motivated mass is not only laughable but places you out there on the lunatic fringe.

If you have a bona fide contribution to this issue please enlighten us otherwise, you are by the nature of your posts alienating yourself further from reality and only trying to turn it into a conspiracy among big business and big government. As I stated earlier, this issue will be driven by the common people and businesses and governments will have to bow to that force. It is already happening. If you have a worthwhile argument and empirical evidence to support your assertions regarding the consequences of actions to combat global warming, let's hear it.

Gord as always, your ability to find the relevant information on any topic is without compare. Thank you for saving me the trouble - us leftists have to work together ya know!

[Pura Vida]

It seems that we face an economic disaster no matter what...

"Former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern last year warned that the fallout of climate change could be on the scale of the two world wars and the Great Depression of the 1930s unless urgent action was taken."

World's mayors meet at New York climate change summit - Yahoo! News

(OK, I'll admit that Yahoo News is not my main source for climate information but hey, it was an interesting find in light of the current topic! I'm not sure how liberal an orginization the World Bank is.)