Ask Me Help Desk - They haven't worked it out yet

They haven't worked it out yet

Study: Climate change 'undeniable' - CNN.com
In the latest report scientists say climate change is undeniable. I don't deny climate change but I think the uncertainty lies in the possibility that man is capable of stopping or reversing the trend, or that the conclusion that man is wholly responsible for what is happening is a valid conclusion. The reality is we have neither been here long enough or have sufficient data to come to these conclusions. What did the caveman say ten thousand years ago when the ice started to melt? Our fires are responsible? No they said look how the grass grows.

This is a debate we really have to have. How far are we prepared to go to reverse the effects?
Are we prepared to depopulate the Earth?
Are we prepared to change our lifestyle?
Are we prepared to permit the failure of our economic systems?

I think the answer is no on all counts. Therefore, we have to adapt and that might mean being sensible about where and how we build our houses, what food we eat and just how much energy we have available to consume in any form

So start now. Eat local foods, shop with cloth reusable bags, avoid buying processed foods (cook from scratch), walk more (drive less), spend quality time with the family playing board games and putting together jigsaw puzzles and reading, recycle children's clothing with friends and shop for used clothing, be content with what you have.

We could shift our lifestyle back to 1800, and in 139 years we'd have a whole degree off the mean global temperature.

Not happening.

We actually could start producing energy from less polluting methods, like hydro and nuclear and solar furnaces. It might not help the temp, but you could see the thermometer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catsmine

We could shift our lifestyle back to 1800, and in 139 years we'd have a whole degree off the mean global temperature.

Not happenin.

We actually could start producing energy from less polluting methods, like hydro and nuclear and solar furnaces. It might not help the temp, but you could see the thermometer.

1800's, all those horses, I don't think so, pollution was worse then than it is now. Alternative energy is good but have you noticed, it is very expensive, this is why there is not more of it. What we have to do is find ways of using less energy. Every solution doesn't have to be connected to the grid, what good is converting transport to electricity, it hasn't really solved anything. What good is producing technology with rare minerals? If anything it is going to make us just as dependent as on oil. Bicycles should be mandatory for all short journeys, this would solve many problems

... stop interacting on the web... after all ,when you are on line you are on the grid . Don't buy an overpriced O-Volt that for $40 grand gets you an extra 40 miles of milage,and again ,plugs into the grid.

Clete ,you are right .There is enough uncertainty to make the proposition of human caused AGW debatable at best. It really weakens their argument to declare anyone who disagrees is a "denier " as if we are questionioning the historical accuracy of the holocost... or make the absurd proposition that their thesis is "settled science" .The headline for the CNN article is insulting.

Of course "climate change " is undeniable. In the history of the planet the earth has been significantly both hotter and colder than it is today. Like my bumper sticker says "Climate Change Happens" .It used to be
"global warming "but now "climate change " is a little tougher to dispute. Few deny climate has warmed as we've climbed out of the Little Ice Age of the mid-19th Century.Before that it cooled after the Medieval Warm Period . What is less certain is that the warming has anthropogenic causes.

The climategate scandal proves that the biggest advocates of this proposition in the so called scientific community do not have the integrity to be taken seriously. Their emails proved that they were willing to manipulate the data to conform to a predetermined outcome. That is not science by anyone's definition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

1800's, all those horses, I don't think so, pollution was worse then than it is now. Alternative energy is good but have you noticed, it is very expensive, this is why there is not more of it. What we have to do is find ways of using less energy. Every solution doesn't have to be connected to the grid, what good is converting transport to electricity, it hasn't really solved anything. What good is producing technology with rare minerals? If anything it is going to make us just as dependent as on oil. Bicycles should be mandatory for all short journeys, this would solve many problems

Why not have hybred cars that run on hydrogen fuel cells and electricity ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by califdadof3

Why not have hybred cars that run on hydrogen fuel cells and electricity ?

An engine that generates it's own electricity is OK to an extent but you are still putting a carbon based fuel in the tank, electricity has to come from somewhere and it comes from the grid which is primarily carbon based. All we have been doing is substituting with the intent of reducing emissions only something like or wind solar is free of carbon but they rely on some very high carbon emissions to refine the components. The lithium batteries in electric cars are not free from their problems and ultimately we are substituting one problem for another, one dependency for another. Hydrogen will take us out of the cycle as long as it does take too much to generate, either that or small reactors.

What I think is this we already have a highly refined technology what we need to do is make it more efficient and we do that by becoming more responsible and realising we don't need the big gas guzzlers. Most trips people make they don't need the vehicles they drive. They could walk, cycle, or share and of course there is public transport

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

An engine that generates it's own electricity is ok to an extent but you are still putting a carbon based fuel in the tank, electricity has to come from somewhere and it comes from the grid which is primarily carbon based. All we have been doing is substituting with the intent of reducing emissions only something like or wind solar is free of carbon but they rely on some very high carbon emissions to refine the components. The lithium batteries in electric cars are not free from their problems and ultimately we are substituting one problem for another, one dependency for another. Hydrogen will take us out of the cycle as long as it does take too much to generate, either that or small reactors.

What I think is this we already have a highly refined technology what we need to do is make it more efficient and we do that by becoming more responsible and realising we don't need the big gas guzzlers. Most trips people make they don't need the vehicles they drive. They could walk, cycle, or share and of course there is public transport

You use the hydrogen to run the motor for an electric car. The same way trains use a diesel engine to run them. Trains run on electric motors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

1800's, all those horses, I don't think so, pollution was worse then than it is now.

I can't find it at the moment but there was a study that proved the methane produced from cows (& all other animals, including humans) was a far greater threat than the gas emissions from other sources such as automobiles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

This is a debate we really have to have. How far are we prepared to go to reverse the effects?
Are we prepared to depopulate the Earth?

I have already done my part on that score. No progeny.:D

How about in the U.S. we adopt China's policy to a degree? Keep people from popping out 18+ children.

Quote:

Originally Posted by califdadof3

You use the hydrogen to run the motor for an electric car. The same way trains use a diesel engine to run them. Trains run on electric motors.

We have to get away from the carbon cycle in all its forms for a number of reasons. Hydrogen as fuel offers a possibility but electric cars recharging on mains are a stop gap unless nuclear becomes the source of base load power. It is a fool's paradise to covert cars to electricity fed from coal or oil/gas powered power stations. Diesel engines are a convenience but still are part of the carbon cycle, the railways should all be converted to electric power because those electric motors have the ability to generate electricity on the down grade and much greater use of railways should be made for long haul freight

What is the efficiency ? Will it require more power to produce than it generates ? I understand that people think it will run cleaner. But, if the pollution is transferred from the auto engine to the generating plant then what goal is really achieved ?

It comes down to the following . You have carbon based fuel ,you have nuclear ,and you have renewables. Some renewables like wind ,solar ,and hydrogen require the mining of rare earth minerals who's long term supply are at best questionable.Fuel cells use neodymium magnets. Others require the conversion of plant biomass into fuel ;often requiring greater energy than generated.

The point is that hydrogen isn't self generating . There has to be a conversion or extraction to turn hydrogen into a fuel . I kind of doubt that it will replace the efficiency of the combustible engine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

The point is that hydrogen isn't self generating . There has to be a conversion or extraction to turn hydrogen into a fuel . I kinda doubt that it will replace the efficiency of the combustible engine.

The combustion engine in a motor vehicle isn't as efficient as you might think, 20% perhaps, a great deal of fuel is unburnt and wasted, and a lot of power is lost in the drive train but yes we are a long way from having wide spread use of hydrogen in ICE so we have to become more innovative and this includes dealing with the mass of the vehicle and the need for unnecessary trips. Electric motors might lift that efficiency to 50% but we cannot afford to do this if we are substituting oil/gas for coal.

The day of the dinosaur SUV is over but some people haven't seen the meteorite yet

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

This is a debate we really have to have. How far are we prepared to go to reverse the effects?

Are we prepared to depopulate the Earth?
Are we prepared to change our lifestyle?
Are we prepared to permit the failure of our economic systems?

I think the answer is no on all counts.

Hello deniers:

Let me see. We ARE running out of oil. Yes. Are we going to DO anything about it? Apparently, not. Is that pretty stupid? Yup.

Look. Here's the deal. I've said it before, and I guess I'll have to say it again. I think pollution causes global warming. But, I don't know... YOU think pollution doesn't cause global warming, but YOU don't know. So, whether we should develop alternate forms of energy ought not be based on whether pollution causes global warming. It DOESN'T matter. We're going to have to switch EVEN if it doesn't...

This is really pretty simple. Am I THAT much smarter than you?? Yup.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

This is really pretty simple. Am I THAT much smarter than you??? Yup.

excon

NUP! It is not smart to state the bleeding obvious or parrot the views of the misinformed

Ex, I agree we have to change because soon, or even sooner, or maybe later, oil will be in short supply or too expensive to waste on fueling the internal combustion engine. Okay so we have talked about part of the problem, but the other part of the problem which no one wants to go near is energy.

Sometime we will have to talk about turning off the air conditioners, the lights, the heating because until we have that discussion we have only looked at half the problem. We aren't willing to say it but I will, lifestyle is the problem. We keep building power stations and even if we have renewables it is not enough and it doesn't handle base load. If you have ever lived in a place (third world or war time) when power is only available part of the day you have experienced what we are headed into unless we cure this insatiable demand for more energy. So what do you want an electric car or an air conditioner, it might just come down to that when they have to load limit dwellings

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

NUP! it is not smart to state the bleeding obvious or parrot the views of the misinformed

we arn't willing to say it but I will, lifestyle is the problem.

Hello again, clete:

WHO isn't willing to say it?? My group of greenies has been saying THIS for YEARS. How could you have missed it? It's not smart to parrot the views of the misinformed.

excon

Still waiting for the loudest greenies to lead by example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Still waiting for the loudest greenies to lead by example.

Hello again, tom:

So, you're willing to throw your fellow Americans under the bus because Al Gore MIGHT BE the hypocrite you THINK he is?? That's pretty mean..

Let me ask you this. Let's say Al Gore threw over his lifestyle and adopted one YOU approve of. Would you then be green?? Nahhh. You ain't waiting for ANYTHING. You simply OBJECT to ANY policy that would impact the bottom line of your favorite oil companies. Like clete, you don't want to give up ANYTHING. You like things just as they are, and you don't want ANYBODY upsetting your applecart. You just don't have the cojones to say it, so you blame it on Al Gore.

excon

You are right . I don't 'want' to give up anything. I think the market will solve energy requirements... innovation will make our energy usage cleaner (as it is already doing) . I ,unlike you ,don't think the world is a shrinking pie. I'm more of a 'rising tide lifts all boats' kind of person. [and no I don't mean a rising sea].

I'm burdened with history . I know the climate fluctuates... That it got colder and warmer long before humans learned to convert carbon based fuels into power. I know in the past when energy was becoming scarce that new forms were invented /discovered .I see no reason why that history won't repeat.
It is amazing to me that the so called best scientific minds are so pessimistic about the future.

But what is really scary is that the priviliged class think they can manage this imposed scarcity ,this rationing ,while they in turn live like the pigs in 'Animal Farm'.

I don't want to give up anything either, and I decided last month after several years of testing that I HATE compact fluorescent bulbs. The ethanol in the gas around here is not great for my old pickup and besides, I like 10 for a dollar corn on the cob more than 3 for a dollar corn on the cob.

I'd love to add some solar panels because we have lots of sunshine, but they're cost prohibitive, ugly as hell, take up too much space and tend to make your roof leak.

The idea of an electric car is nice, but $41k for a car that will get you a whopping 40 miles on a charge sounds like the kind of thing that would release Al Gore's chakra, but not mine.

And, they'll have to pry my grills and smokers out of my cold, dead hands.

Quote:

I'd love to add some solar panels because we have lots of sunshine, but they're cost prohibitive, ugly as hell, take up too much space and tend to make your roof leak.

Not to mention the occasional hail storm .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Not to mention the occasional hail storm .

Yep, we have world class hail to go along with our world class wind that could turn your roof into a solar kite.

We have by the way, been at the forefront of wind technology around here, but we're not to keen on all those new transmission lines they want to crisscross our beautiful plains and canyons.

I don't blame them either . That's the other thing that should be discussed here . NIMBY . Green-goes purchase land in pristine areas around here in places where it makes the most sense to build these wind farms... you know ;open space ,exposed ridgelines plenty of wind... and then pack town halls in opposition to wind farm construction because it will ruin their sitelines. Hypocrites think all energy generation should be done in poor neighborhoods.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Still waiting for the loudest greenies to lead by example.

Me too but they are not green they are trogladites

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Hypocrites think all energy generation should be done in poor neighborhoods.

What's wrong with that? If the jobs go to poor neighbourhoods, but green industries like wind and solar aren't about jobs, the're is very little employment once the construction phase is over, not like a good ole dirty coal fired power station. What these green industries will do is actually create unemployment and that's not generally known, other wise your lefty union base wouldn't be interested

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

What's wrong with that? if the jobs go to poor neighbourhoods, but green industries like wind and solar arn't about jobs, the're is very little employment once the construction phase is over, not like a good ole dirty coal fired power station. what these green industries will do is actually create unemployment and that's not generally known, other wise your lefty union base wouldn't be interested

And here with our "green jobs initiative," no one can even define what a "green job" is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

Me too but they are not green they are trogladites

I was thinking of that term earlier in a different context. They want us to live like troglodyte cave-dwellers while they jet set around creating carbon foot prints the size of sasquatch imprints .

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

And here with our "green jobs initiative," no one can even define what a "green job" is.

Perhaps it's painting rocks green?

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

Perhaps it's painting rocks green?

No no no. Its mowing the lawns for minimum wage ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by califdadof3

No no no. Its mowing the lawns for minimum wage ;)

With a rotary push mower.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catsmine

With a rotary push mower.

Which is why we need amnesty, all those jobs Americans won't do?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Which is why we need amnesty, all those jobs Americans won't do?

So you want an amnesty for all the americans who employ illegal labour, but then labour in america was never illegal

I don't want amnesty, I just didn't engage the sarcasm font.

I just love it when you tell us we should ride bicycles or walk or use mass transit.

I am 72 and ain't going to ride no bike to the nearest grocery store which is 3 miles away.

Mass transit? Only in the megaplexes.

No, the answer is in finding ways to produce more power for the buck. I don't understand why we haven't built any nuclear plants for years or decades. With the technology we have, they are safe, dependable, and will never run out of fuel. They do have to be decommissioned and replaced every so many years.

So now we have a growing number of full electric cars on the market, and for example, the So Tex nuclear plant is do for decommission before long.

Wonder where all that extra electricity will come from? Maybe there will have to be a permit to plug in with certain hours you have to use so the grid won't crash?

Wind and solar are OK, but for any foreseeable future can only provide a small % of our needs.

We will still need oil for a multitude of uses besides fuel. Actally, I think gasoline is a by-product that has no other use than as fuel.

see I told you the problem is lifestyle, Nuclear power is an expensive option that is why coal and gas are used and all the other "renewables" are expensive too, electric cars are popular because the running costs are low but will they be as popular when you pay as much as you do now or more for fuel and you are limited as to how far you can go, you see mass transit has to come into the equation. To solve these problems a different technology is needed and a completely different philosophy of life

Give technology a chance! Forty years ago, air pollution in our cities was much worse than it is now, even though there are millions of cars more. Also, our cars now get about twice the mileage as they did back then.

As for running out of oil, we have huge reserves we haven't touched and abundant natural gas.

Out problem is not lack of supply, it is extreme environmentalists.

Let's give the coming generation the opportunity to solve the problems and not saddle them with impossible finincial burdens, ie: Cap and Tax, or whatever other name they hang on it.

Public transportation will never be available to a major part of the population, as it is only practical in densely populated areas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by galveston

Give technology a chance! Forty years ago, air pollution in our cities was much worse than it is now, even though there are millions of cars more. Also, our cars now get about twice the mileage as they did back then.

40 years ago it was the 70's and back then there was a car from Honda it was the crx that would get 50mpg. Most other cars from the big 3 were changing from carburators to fuel injection. But at the beginning of the 70's the high powered 350cui V8's were getting close to 20 mpg. The smog controls of today take away from the raw power an engine can produce and are struggling with having to run as lean as possible. Average MPG of today hasn't doubled nor is it near what it could be. Thanks enviromentalists.

Hi, Cal,

Your comment on the large v8's is right on, but there are not nearly as many of them as there were, so the average mileage is a lot higher, I was only guessing at the double figure.

You do bring up the thought about what we could be getting from ANY engine if it were not for extreme environmental views.

I owned a Subaru FE coupe that would get 33 mpg in town. Not a performance car, but solid transportation that was even comfortable for a long trip. It was a carburetorated, 1.6 flat 4.

Quote:

Originally Posted by galveston

Hi, Cal,

Your comment on the large v8's is right on, but there are not nearly as many of them as there were, so the average mileage is a lot higher, I was only guessing at the double figure.

You do bring up the thought about what we could be getting from ANY engine if it were not for extreme environmental views.

I owned a Subaru FE coupe that would get 33 mpg in town. Not a performance car, but solid transportation that was even comfortable for a long trip. It was a carburetorated, 1.6 flat 4.

The only reason we don't have a carb today is because f the smog controls that were implemented. Also the standard set by the stoichiometric ceiling has been surpassed with today's gasolines. But the still cling to the old unrealistic standards.

Stoichiometry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Originally Posted by califdadof3

40 years ago it was the 70's and back then there was a car from Honda it was the crx that would get 50mpg.

I got about 45 mpg in my 95 Protégé. You had to pedal really fast to get up a hill but it didn't use much gas.

Bad news, the sun exploded...

Nasa scientists braced for 'solar tsunami' to hit earth