Climate Group: Kilimanjaro a 'wake-up call'

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Hehe, I knew someone would reply from the other side.
Okay...
"Is this a consideration that should be overlooked?"
Not at all, but cost not an excuse to do nothing. I'm talking about fitting scrubbers, waste heat recovery units, home insulation, more economic use of the energy we do create, not complete plant rebuilds.

"Global warming and cooling are not natural events?"
Sure, but are we influencing them, are we at a topple point, or accelerating certain effects and symptoms?

"I don't think anybody can legitimately claim that, or has."
Why yes, you implied it above when you asked whether climate change was not a natural thing, the deniers often assert that this has been happening for ages and ole Mother Earth still gets by.

"WHo is "we?" and who are "they?""

Them and us, we all do it all the time, especially here, some folks blame the west, some folks blame developing countries, some folks blame buffaloes in rice paddies. Some folks even demonise the US, but I have in the past tried to level that argument based on industrial output, you can't really compare Switzerland with Pittsburgh for example.....

"People on my side of the argument typically don't say that."
Yes they do. I've seen stockholders interests and job creation being placed above pollution on this very forum in the last month.

At the end of the day though Lawrocket, it won't really affect you and I, apart from our cost of living, and even then only in a minor way. It will probably affect that wee darling in your avatar. What do you think is more important right now? What sort of atmosphere do you want your kid to grow up in?

"Who's going to pay for it?
That's kind of important, isn't it?"
In money terms, or health terms......You and I, ultimately.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[billvon 2,470]

> Inovation caused by regulation???

Fuel injection, catalytic converters, oxygen sensors, closed loop computer stochiometric combustion control, Atkins cycle engines, EGR - all innovations that are making some companies very, very rich, and all caused by regulation. And that's just one regulation (automotive emissions.)

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

My previous posts were my facetious attempts at echoing ridiculous arguments I've heard. My arguments were SO bad that it appears many people bought that I was actually truthfully arguing those things.

It's a shame when the diatribe heard from hotheads is believeable, because I echoed what many people actually believe.

That is what I thought...just checking.
However, can you actually say that the smog levels in cities like LA, Mexico City, or NUMEROUS other bigs cities does not exist? You are saying that the listless air and the color is NATURALLY occurring? I am sorry, but that is just ridiculous.

Even if you don't believe global warming is being influenced by man, there is no way that the excessive smog we see around cities is natural. Should we not do anything about it?

I think we should. And by doing so, we can help against global warming( which I think exists) as a side effect of cleaning the air.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[billvon 2,470]

> I've climbed Kilimanjaro and enjoyed it immensely.

And now lots more people can, without alpine equipment!

This is the "greening earth" argument. Warmer winters! More beachfront in Georgia! Vineyards in Greenland! Manhattan looks like historic Venice! Ain't it grand?

[billvon 2,470]

>Global warming and cooling are not natural events?

They can be, just as forest fires can be natural events. That doesn't mean that arson is a natural event.

The climate will continue to slowly change as it has done for some 3 billion years now no matter what. The problem is that we are forcing very rapid changes on it by manipulating one of the key drivers for climate (heat retention.) Will we be able to adapt as it changes? Maybe, maybe not. The rich countries probably will, the poor countries probably won't.

This is one of the basic problems with the debate. The US doesn't much care about climate change because we will probably survive it. Former Floridians will move to Arizona as the waters rise, and people will stop living in trailers as storms get worse. Niger cares very much about climate change, because change the monsoonal rains and tens of thousands of people die. So Niger is for it and we're against it.

>Does nature have zero part in it?

Again, if I start a fire in your backyard and burn your house down, could I use the argument "but forest fires are natural!" ?

>WHo is "we?" and who are "they?"

Generally the US and China respectively. We are the worst emitters of CO2 on the planet. The "we are not as bad as they are" argument is generally made by people who don't know the difference between CO2 and pollution.

>Do we want more people dying from the cure than could die from the problem?

Of course not. But even very mild proposals are being met with incredible resistance. Increasing CAFE would have barely impacted car companies; all they would have to do is change their pricing structure to meet it. And it would have had a tremendous impact both on oil usage and on CO2 emissions. The CAFE increase was voted down.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Kyoto has cost nearly $12 Billion since Feb, 2005, while the estimated temp. savings by 2050 is .000121536- C. This represents $100,000. per 1 billionth of a degree saved. So theoretcally we could lower the temperature 1 degree-C by spending 100 trillion dollars.

The predicted savings by implementing Kyoto is-.07-C by 2050.

This doesn't even take into consideration the money spent yearly on global warming research which is $2 billion per year in the U.S. alone and alternative energy research which is currently $3 billion in the U.S. Add to that the money spent in advertising, grants and scare tactics and it becomes apparent there is a huge financial incentive to hype global warming as a cause.

Additional reading:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/abs_temp.html

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

However, can you actually say that the smog levels in cities like LA, Mexico City, or NUMEROUS other bigs cities does not exist? You are saying that the listless air and the color is NATURALLY occurring? I am sorry, but that is just ridiculous.

You're right. Smog exists in those places. Human activity has caused most of that smog. But, I can also say this: LA air was improving a lot when I left there. Whereas I grew up in the era of "smog alerts" there hadn't been one for five years when I left LA. And it didn't take a Kyoto treaty to get Americans to start cleaning it up. We did that on out own.

Quote

Should we not do anything about it?

Americans are. So are Europeans, lest they repeat infamous events like the London Fog of winter 1952-53 that killed perhaps over 12,000 people.

I'll reiterate my long-time stance - the most-cost effective way of decreasing greenhouse emissions is to combat the release of methane. IN fact, we can harvest methane and burn it, thus lessening our need for reliance on coal and oil, thereby causing a secondary effect decreasing CO2 emissions and lessening our dependence on foreign oil.

We can do this with relatively little expense.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

This doesn't even take into consideration the money spent yearly on global warming research which is $2 billion per year in the U.S. alone and alternative energy research which is currently $3 billion in the U.S. Add to that the money spent in advertising, grants and scare tactics and it becomes apparent there is a huge financial incentive to hype global warming as a cause.

Kyoto aside, spending money on alternative energy research is not silly. No more silly anyway than spending billions on war anyway. That is not a slight on Bush...American just spends alot on war, no matter what president is in power.

As a corrolation: So, because it is expensive to research into alternative energy, we should stop? We should stagnate and keeping using oil and coal until they run out then?

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[billvon 2,470]

>This doesn't even take into consideration the money spent yearly on
> global warming research which is $2 billion per year in the U.S. alone and
> alternative energy research which is currently $3 billion in the U.S.

Climate change research is needed because so many people say "I won't believe it until I have more proof!"

Alternative energy research has already paid off. Wind is now as cheap as natural gas power, and solar is taking off. If we do survive the coming oil crisis it will be because we sunk enough money into preparing for it through research into alternative energy sources.

>Add to that the money spent in advertising, grants and scare tactics and
>it becomes apparent there is a huge financial incentive to hype global
>warming as a cause.

Please point to any public money being used for scare tactics.

Grants I agree with; we give grants for everything from cancer research to AIDS cures to climate change research to soybean fertilizer research to the Country and Western Museum restoration projects. Some of them pay off, some of them don't. The climate change research has already paid off in terms of better climactic models for climate predictions.

[TheAnvil 0]

It's the altitude and not the climbing that makes the ascent difficult on most routes, though there are some routes that are extremely difficult.



Some of the enviro arguments make sense - others don't. Greenland has been full of pastures and etc before - perhaps it shall be again.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 2,470]

>the most-cost effective way of decreasing greenhouse emissions is to
>combat the release of methane. IN fact, we can harvest methane and burn
>it, thus lessening our need for reliance on coal and oil, thereby causing a
> secondary effect decreasing CO2 emissions and lessening our
> dependence on foreign oil.

If that is combined with an effort to replace gasoline with methane, then that would indeed have a net positive effect. We'd still emit CO2, but methane emits less CO2 per BTU than gasoline and it mitigates methane releases. The next step beyond _that_ is to start synthesizing methane from atmospheric CO2 and water, using power from windmills. That's a 100% carbon neutral means of generating and distributing energy.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

This doesn't even take into consideration the money spent yearly on global warming research which is $2

Quote

billion per year in the U.S. alone and alternative energy research which is currently $3 billion in the U.S. Add to that the money spent in advertising, grants and scare tactics and it becomes apparent there is a huge financial incentive to hype global warming as a cause.

Quote

Kyoto aside, spending money on alternative energy research is not silly. No more silly anyway than spending billions on war anyway. That is not a slight on Bush...American just spends alot on war, no matter what president is in power.

Where did I say alternative research was silly? I think we need to spend much more than we do on it. Nice cheap shot at Bush. I can argue money spent on just about anything would be better spent on something else. How about people start using condoms and then we can use the money spent on AIDs research on alternative energy research. Then there's NASA etc.....

Quote

As a corrolation: So, because it is expensive to research into alternative energy, we should stop? We should stagnate and keeping using oil and coal until they run out then?

Nope. And I never said anything even remotely close to that.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Please point to any public money being used for scare tactics.

I never said any public money was used for scare tactics.

Quote

Grants I agree with; we give grants for everything from cancer research to AIDS cures to climate change research to soybean fertilizer research to the Country and Western Museum restoration projects. Some of them pay off, some of them don't. The climate change research has already paid off in terms of better climactic models for climate predictions.

You just answered your first question.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

This doesn't even take into consideration the money spent yearly on global warming research which is $2 billion per year in the U.S. alone and alternative energy research which is currently $3 billion in the U.S. Add to that the money spent in advertising, grants and scare tactics and it becomes apparent there is a huge financial incentive to hype global warming as a cause.

You lumped money spent on alternative energy research with the money spent on global warming research. To any person reading, it would sound that you are saying that we have spent too much money on global warming AND alternative energy. You never made the distinction that the 3 billion spent on that was better than the 2 billion spent on global warming. I am sorry if I misunderstood, but you did not explain it very well either.

Quote

Kyoto aside, spending money on alternative energy research is not silly. No more silly anyway than spending billions on war anyway. That is not a slight on Bush...American just spends alot on war, no matter what president is in power.

Quote

Nice cheap shot at Bush.

Please, obviously, you chose not to even read my last sentence. America spends a ton of money on war. No matter what President happens to be in power. Period. That is what I said. If I wanted to bash Bush I would not need to be sneaky about it. I put that it was not about Bush for the exact reason that someone would think I was Bush bashing. I should have realized that it would take it that way anyway.

I don't care what president is in power, we need to spend more on alternative research.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

***Oxygen is heavier than nitrogen, so why is there any nitrogen at the Earth's surface? CO2 is denser than both, so how come we don't all suffocate unless we climb mountains?



Uhhh Kallend,

Since I am merely a non-practicing anthropologist/archaeologist,and you are a all-knowing all seeing Physics prof..

I could ask you a few questions........

Molecular wt. of air ?
Molecular wt. of R12 ?

And in terms that I can hopefully understand,how the heavy R12 stuff, floats up through the nice "light " air column

Quote

Just because YOU can't understand the science doesn't make the science wrong.



And you are absolutely correct Prof.

I do have trouble understanding "junk" science

and just because several theories are published with questionable data doesnt make the science right either

By Jove! You are right - the atmosphere is layered according to MW of the various gases present. At the bottom is a 9' thick layer of CO2, (where we live), followed by a layer of argon 280 ft thick, then a 7,000 ft thick layer of oxygen, then nitrogen, with neon and water vapor above that.

Good job the water vapor is way up above the N2 layer, so we never get high humidity down here in the CO2 layer.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[Gravitymaster 0]

I think you missed my point. It was that there are huge financial incentives to implement Global warming deterents. Whenever there are these type of incentives, there is also the potential for hype and abuse. Therefore you must remain sceptical of these types of claims.

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/ghcc_cvcc.html

[lawrocket 3]

So, bill, you agree that it is a good idea for a start of a solution. It was also good ten years ago, right? And it makes good sense from a US Security standpoint.

So, why do I not hear these ideas being stated or initiated? Could it be because many are not interested in a solution that could further empower the Shells, Exxons and BPs, or other corporations of the world?

Rather, my thought that the primary goal of this environmentalism is to destroy the petrochemical industry and related corporations.

If there was simply an attempt to clean up greenhouse gases, and do so with the most bang for the buck, I'd think they'd go for an approach like this. But they are not, which leads me to believe that there is more of an underlying agenda at work.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

I think you missed my point.

That is exactly what I said. Now I got it.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Skyrad 0]

I saw the snowcap om Killi some months ago and it was amazing being there at 18,000ft but it made me angery that I'd never be able to climb through the snow in a couple of years ever again.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[markd_nscr986 0]

Well..........

I guessed you wouldnt give a straight HONEST answer to a simple question........

Molecular wt of air = 28.9

Molecular wt of R12 = 121

Hey Prof....... 4X heavier than air
Let's see if we put that R12 in a ballon it should "rocket" straight in to the stratosphere

And about the "layering" of the atmosphere
Damn, you left out partial pressuresalong with a few other thingsabout behaviour of gases in the atmosphere

But if you are at a loss to explain the mechanism that takes R12 and puts it into the stratosphere,that's OK.........I understand,sometimes it can be hard to defend "junk science"

And thank goodness,in Colo. we dont live in the CO2 layer like you do in Chicago.....that does explain a lot of things though

And as always Prof. "Eschew Obfuscation"

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[billvon 2,470]

>So, bill, you agree that it is a good idea for a start of a solution. . . .So,
> why do I not hear these ideas being stated or initiated?

Because there are a great many people who feel that climate change is a big hoax perpetrated by people who want to destroy the US, and any attempt to mitigate CO2 emissions is aiding the enemy. Just read some of the replies on this very thread.

>If there was simply an attempt to clean up greenhouse gases, and do so
> with the most bang for the buck, I'd think they'd go for an approach like
>this. But they are not, which leads me to believe that there is more of an
> underlying agenda at work.

Most opponents to CO2 reduction believe as you do, but are not smart enough to make a distinction between effective solutions and silly science. They simplify things to the point that any attempt to reduce CO2 emissions is an evil plot to destroy the US.

One wonders what will happen when China passes us in terms of CO2 emissions, which will probably happen within 15 years. If we then agree to CO2 reductions due to the (more serious) climate changes we see during that time, will we be trying to destroy China?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

But if you are at a loss to explain the mechanism that takes R12 and puts it into the stratosphere,that's OK.........I understand,sometimes it can be hard to defend "junk science"

See here. I learned it in junior high school science class.

Diffusion: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=13652

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,470]

>But if you are at a loss to explain the mechanism that takes R12 and
>puts it into the stratosphere . . .

I can explain that to you as soon as you explain what 'magic' force takes CO2 (generated only at the surface of the earth, and one of the highest molecular weight gases in the atmosphere) and transports it into the stratosphere.

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

But if you are at a loss to explain the mechanism that takes R12 and puts it into the stratosphere,that's OK.........I understand,sometimes it can be hard to defend "junk science"

See here. I learned it in junior high school science class.

Diffusion: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=13652

And in addition, there are turbulence and convection processes. The very fact that we don't suffocate in our own exhalations is evidence.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Oh, let me clarify. I was refering to the average person (ie some posters here, the guy on the street, etc). There are people who have no stake in industries that do the polluting (of course, I do not know if some posters here are in thse industries or not) who ADMANTLY oppose cleaning the enviroment or slowing air pollution.

CARB (California Air Resource Board) has been one of the most active forces in the country in forcing change. Not always good change. Sometimes it appears to be change for the sake of change.

BBQs and wood burning fireplaces are under review or control. Off road vehicles have been severely affected. These are the kind of nuisances that can piss people off. Meanwhile millions of cars continue to pollute along.