They're not even talking about a storm like Katrina, just a simple Category 2 storm.
You might also find this educational as to the power of the sun. Within 6 hours just the deserts alone (not counting the oceans) absorb the anount of energy that mankind burns in 1 year! Thus one of the major factors in global temperatures is if the sun is just slightly more or less active each year! Just a 1% change in solar activity would be 3 days of energy (3/365). Each day of enmergy is 4X that created by humans. So if the sun just burned 1% faster, the energy hitting the deserts would be 12X the amount of energy man consumes each year!
If we unleashed every primed nuclear warhead we have NOW, including the thermo-nuclear warheads,
That is less than 1% of the energy of the Chile earthquake; that is what we've been telling you for days.
we could devastate the population
Because man directs that energy at population centers, not because it is anywhere near as powerful as natural phenomenon. A hurricane more powerful than the current global nuclear arsenal may kill no humans, because it is at sea.
Can Man equal the power of a Category 5 Hurricane? Easily
I think we've proven you've got things backwards. Care to find a reputable link that says man can equal the power of a Category 5 hurricane?
In answer to the question offered,I say read the title. The non-science boys who have paid some tier 3 school to teach them all about science have been had,and I always suggest they see a lawyer to see if they can get some sort of refund. Guys with grid science degrees(Im in that sub-category,by the way) laugh and laugh at the science idiots and their non senscical garbage they throw out to everyone that stinks right off the bat,but the shrill groupies that follow their every move have the com most of the time,so we just laugh like he-- at them. NASA,= Never a Straight Answer because they cannot give one,they are not allowed tier 1 protocol. Its funny to see the screamers and manipulators and emotional outbursts of a pregnant mom all coming out of "Dudes" with a five -o-clock shadow.
Right - they are talking about "total energy released" which does not happen in one area. It's the total energy released during the life of the hurricane, which is not CONCENTRATED AT ONE TIME IN ONE AREA like a nuke would be.
My point was and is that Man can do plenty of damage to the Earf. And he can.
My point was and is that Man can do plenty of damage to the Earf. And he can.
Slight correction, and he has
No one is disputing our potential to pollute or damage the earth. We have made rivers and lakes unsuitable for use by man with pollution. We have made the air unhealthy to breath. We have cut down rain forests that provide the oxygen we need to survive.
However, over the last 40 years we have also cleaned up the air and water to acceptable levels in most cases. There are still some areas that need work. I don't believe automobiles sold in the USA today should be on that list. We have reached the point of diminishing returns with regards to auto emissions. LEV, ULEV, SULEV, PZEV. What's next? For some people the only alternative is to get rid of the personal automobile completely. I hope that does not happen in my lifetime.
I enjoy driving on roads that are not cluttered with bumper to bumper traffic. Driving on TX 90 from El Paso to Del Rio was wonderful. 1000s of antelope and not another car for hours. Quaint little towns with people enjoying the quiet life. US 60 through KY and MO are wonderful drives. The automobile more than any other invention has made life better for Americans. I will resist any attempts to steal that bit of pleasure from our lives. And I do not believe they change the climate one iota.
Gary says, "However, over the last 40 years we have also cleaned up the air and water to acceptable levels in most cases. "
For which credit goes to the EPA and the agencies it manages.
Gary says, "Driving on TX 90 from El Paso to Del Rio was wonderful. 1000s of antelope and not another car for hours. Quaint little towns with people enjoying the quiet life. US 60 through KY and MO are wonderful drives. The automobile more than any other invention has made life better for Americans. I will resist any attempts to steal that bit of pleasure from our lives. And I do not believe they change the climate one iota. "
You can make that same trip on a bicycle, or a horse, or walking, or on a Segway (with several spare batteries). Gas-powered Cars are not the only way to get around.
Gas-powered Cars are not the only way to get around.
You are right. A diesel-powered vehicle is far superior to anything burning gasoline. On that trip through TX I was driving a MB diesel Sprinter RV that weighed 8500 lbs. It got 25 MPG. What alternative is offered to even come close to that. You think a horse would pollute less? You are obviously not listening. What other invention by man has done more to give US mobility, than the automobile? Sure if you are in good health you can quit your job and circle the globe walking or riding a bike. Tell us how your trip to visit family in TX goes on your bike or Segway.
Just as an example. Walking 16 hours a day it would take about 20 days to reach Del Rio TX. Or 16 hours driving. The cost of lodging alone would far surpass the cost of diesel fuel for that trip. You can be a Forrest Gump and live in a cave. I prefer the modern conveniences man has developed. The car being number one on the list.
Also you can go naked and spray yourself down with the hose to cool off if you happen to live in Arizona. No need to run that dirty, polluting air conditioning. People in other parts of the world live without it, so can you.
It doesn't matter what else you do to lessen your carbon foot print, that AC has got to go. No more excuses !!
Gosh it is fun telling other people how to live !!
In their analysis, motor vehicles emerged as the greatest contributor to atmospheric warming now and in the near term. Cars, buses, and trucks release pollutants and greenhouse gases that promote warming, while emitting few aerosols that counteract it.
The researchers found that the burning of household biofuels -- primarily wood and animal dung for home heating and cooking -- contribute the second most warming. And raising livestock, particularly methane-producing cattle, contribute the third most.
On the other end of the spectrum, the industrial sector releases such a high proportion of sulfates and other cooling aerosols that it actually contributes a significant amount of cooling to the system. And biomass burning -- which occurs mainly as a result of tropical forest fires, deforestation, savannah and shrub fires -- emits large amounts of organic carbon particles that block solar radiation.
The new analysis offers policy makers and the public a far more detailed and comprehensive understanding of how to mitigate climate change most effectively, Unger and colleagues assert. "Targeting on-road transportation is a win-win-win," she said. "It's good for the climate in the short term and long term, and it's good for our health."
I know you agree COMPLETELY, Gary, right? With both the source and the conclusion?
If A/C got "outlawed" I would adapt, like everyone else in town.
You could show US all how environmentally astute you are by not using electricity or any other form of power. Solar cells do pollute China during mfg. Building any car pollutes and the Hybrids more than the rest.
I know you agree COMPLETELY, Gary, right? With both the source and the conclusion?
I do not believe much coming from NASA. They are begging for their life from this administration. You think they would get their budget needs met if they blew the whistle killing Cap N Trade legislation?
The latest pseudo science to hit US is this business that transportation and not industry are the culprits causing GW. How convenient is that? Target the little guy owning a car, and let the big guys continue to pollute. The way I read those new findings. Coal, fossil fuels & Biomass used to manufacture and produce electricity actually are putting out aerosols and sulfates that block the sun and cool the earth. Much easier to believe than the supposed consensus of the last 20 years. With China building factories and electric generating plants on a weekly basis. All powered with coal. It stands to reason that it has something to do with the lack of warming over the last 15 years. In fact we need a few more cars putting out more GHG to balance out the effect of increased manufacturing in the developing countries.
Gary says, "You could show US all how environmentally astute you are by not using electricity or any other form of power. Solar cells do pollute China during mfg. Building any car pollutes and the Hybrids more than the rest."
Like I have said before - I use 40% less power and probably 40% less gasoline than most families and homes my size.
No one is disputing our potential to pollute or damage the earth. We have made rivers and lakes unsuitable for use by man with pollution. We have made the air unhealthy to breath. We have cut down rain forests that provide the oxygen we need to survive.
That's a problem for the warming crowd. When the river catches on fire, it's pretty obvious that that's not a normal condition (unless it's the river Lethe, and not the one in Katmai). When the ice melts or the storms get worse or the birds migrate further north, it's hard to take a glance and figure out if there's a climate related cause, a pattern or if it's just a one-off weather event.
And if it is a problem, the treatment will take years (decades?) to show any results.
The homeless sleeping in the parks, picking scraps from the dumpsters are way ahead of you. You are doing much better than the leaders of the AGW cult. So I guess being in the middle is good enough.
I am doing my part to balance out the Climate. I am burning a wheel barrow load of wood a day in my Obama stove. Saving on Electricity and Propane. What do you think? Do I get a prize.. :shades:
I'm far from the middle. I'm likely in the lower 10% bracket as far as overall usage when the comparable population is functioning, shelter-dwelling, job-holding members of society who live in a city.
Higher fares, reduced routes, fewer choices due to municipal budget cuts nationwide. In some areas, customers are being asked to pay what it really costs to operate the busses and trains. People are outraged at the audacity of the gubmints to do this. They say this hurts going green. A few are learning the real cost of green.
For mass transit commuters in San Diego to pay what it costs would average about $22 per day for round trip from the Burbs to downtown. That is still less than owning the average car with expenses. Mass transit users need to pay their share.
Here is an example you can understand. The average commute in So CA is 32 miles each way or 64 miles round trip. The TCO on a 2010 Prius according to Edmunds is 61 cents per mile. Or $39.04 per commute day to own. Sad part is a lot of our cost is gas tax at 65 cents per gallon in CA. Much of it subsidizes the moochers riding the bus. With many empty or near empty buses mass transit is far from green.
However, to reduce smog, one must reduce overall levels of traffic. Thus, the "few bucks here and there" become increases designed to make private motoring so cost-prohibitive that the economically disadvantaged strata of society are forced into public transport.
Don't believe me? Look at what is happening in the UK.
The problem with that strategy here would be much greater that what is being realised over there.
Stable? It's a relative, subjective term but the Earth's climate, continents, coastlines, and such are not really stable. And certainly the Earth's magnetic field and the amount of solar radiation are now known to be quite unstable.
By examining pots from prehistory to modern times, geologist John Shaw of the University of Liverpool in England has discovered just how dramatically the field has changed. "When we plot the results from the ceramics," he notes, "we see a rapid fall as we come toward the present day. The rate of change is higher over the last 300 years than it has been for any time in the past 5,000 years. It's going from a strong field down to a weak field, and it's doing so very quickly."
At the present rate, Earth's magnetic field could be gone within a few centuries, exposing the planet to the relentless blast of charged particles from space with unpredictable consequences for the atmosphere and life. Other possibilities: the field could stop weakening and begin to strengthen, or it could weaken to the point that it suddenly flips polarity—that is, compasses begin to point to the South Magnetic Pole.
The strength of the Earth's magnetic field has decreased 10 percent over the past 150 years, The weakening -- if coupled with a subsequently large influx of radiation in the form of protons streaming from the sun -- can also affect the chemistry of the atmosphere, said Charles Jackman of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.
Hmmm ... things don't seem too stable in nature if you ask me. Let's see more radiational energy is penetrating deeper into the atmosphere. I bet that might affect the temperature! BTW - the South Atlantic Anomaly referred to, is getting bigger every year; buy stock in companies making SPF 10,000+
If cars were really $.50 per mile to operate, I'd be spending 11-12,000 a year based on miles driven. Couple that with owning 6 vehicles and the fixed costs without even driving them, and I should be spending $15-18,000 a year.
So if anyone out there has any information on how exactly the climate model works, can they tell me if it takes into account this 10% weakening in the Earth's magnetic field?
Why don't we hear about this concern? because we can't chastise mankind? and there's no money to be made off it? or way to control the populace? The Green-Crowd certainly don't want to portray nature as killing off millions of people each year, and decimating many species. Wasn't it very natural when that asteroid 65 million years ago, wiped out 70% of the species on Earth? It also wouldn't do the Green movement much good, if it were pointed out that the Earth is a vibrant planet, rich in life even after a cataclysm like that. No it would do no good to point out that the Earth is not hurt even by the most horrendous of events.
Is this the same manmade global that has been shown to be "proven", as it turns out, by fraudulent evidence and faked data? Informed people have learned to ignore this junk science.
Then, perhaps before blaming transportation for causing the lion's share of manmade global warming, it might be better to prove that it is actually happening. I think that this approach would tend to boost credibility...
Carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant, unless we believe the manmade global warming hysteria.
We already regulate the real pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Levels of those pollutants have been declining for decades, and will continue to decline, as newer, cleaner vehicles replace older, dirtier ones.
Why not err on the side that gives us other benefits too?
While you are certainly entitle to do things like tell your children a white-lie such as "you better be good because Santa's watching and he'll bring you gifts", it is not acceptable to create a story about 1 unproven theory, to support some other cause.
Most people really don't want to be lied to by scientists that AGW is almost certain, if it really isn't. While people will wholeheartedly agree that pollution is bad, everyone realizes that our actions cause pollution, and people have different comfort levels of what is acceptable amounts of pollution.
So for people like you who think the current acceptable norm of pollution is too high, and you're willing to not only change your lifestyle, but are okay with white-lies, so that pollution will be reduced, I say it is deceitful and wrong. People are willing to put up with the negatives of some pollution - the current pollution of today, in return for the benefits of their actions.
That's about as wrong as our government having used the WMD theory in Iraq, to start a war when 1 of the main reasons for the war was to kill Saddam Hussein!
You are pulling a lot of stuff into the discussion that does not belong, so I won't address that stuff.
I think it boils down to the fact that a lot of "deniers" are just people who object to being told how to live their lives.
I think that's admirable, to a degree.
For example, guvmint tells us not to go without seatbelts (for our own good) not to use illegal drugs (for our own good) not to kill people, not to steal, not to this and that.
I see being "told" by the guvmint to conserve energy and don't be wasteful, don't pollute more than your share, be a better steward of our little portion of the Earf, REGARDLESS OF THE RATIONALE they use, as a good thing for every American.
So what if SOME of the people who want that also have lied to get money? Forget them and their rationale.
I don't conserve and preach small carbon footprints to serve AlGore or IPCC.
I do it to serve my kids and their kids in the future.
Because when the issue is someday settled, i.e. the issue of "is Man's activity making the Earf warmer in a BAD way?" then I am in a winner position either way:
If Man WAS affecting it, I did my share. If Man WAS NOT affecting it, I still contributed to lower pollution levels and paid less for my fossil fuel usage.
I don't conserve and preach small carbon footprints to serve AlGore
C'mon, we know you have a little grotto in your back yard with a statue of Al Gore. A little pond with a couple Koi with a place to kneel down. :shades:
You can take "being on the safe side" too far. It's like buying a car for $10,000. and then spending $30,000 on an extended warranty because "you just never know".
If an individual wants to do that it is fine with me...but don't ask me to help pay for it. It is sometimes called the law of diminishing returns. I call it common sense...which seems to be sadly lacking with the warmists.
I just think it is morally and ethically wrong to try and achieve 1 goal - no matter how noble or correct, by creating alarm about some unproven theory.
I would chastise anyone who:
- told people not to go in the woods because they are probably bears there; when the real reason they don't want people there is because they litter and tramp the vegetation. - told people they can't go out for a drink, maybe wanting prohibition, in order to keep people from driving DUI. - told people they couldn't carry a gun, because they don't like it and think the streets would be safer.
and so forth.
Simply because you don't like the effect others have on the planet, does not give anyone the right to use pretentious reasoning. While I did not like Saddam Hussein, it was reprehensible of our leaders to use the false scientific case of WMD in Iraq, as an excuse to get Hussein. Do you support that sort of societal manipulation? It doesn't hurt to lie (or fudge the truth), for a good cause?
History is cluttered with people doing less than noble things under the guise of "The End Justifies the Means"
Most wars got started that way. This whole AGW could evolve into a war between the Haves and the Have Not countries. Our relations with China are becoming more strained. AGW is a big part of the strain.
BEIJING, March 10 (Reuters) - China's top climate negotiator said on Wednesday that the cause of global warming was still not clear but the problems it was creating were so serious that the world must anyway act to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Xie Zhenhua, vice-chairman of the powerful National Development and Reform Commission, also warned the United States it should not use domestic divisions over climate change as an excuse to pass its responsibilities off onto other countries.
Such as shoving the dirty work onto 3rd world countries. Solar Cells, CFLs, Hybrid batteries, anything with mercury content.
kernick says, "I just think it is morally and ethically wrong to try and achieve 1 goal - no matter how noble or correct, by creating alarm about some unproven theory."
Sure it is. AlGore and his ilk deserve derision for that. Their methods are/were deplorable at times.
But it STILL does not change the or affect the POSSIBILITY that Man's activity is causing things to warm up, in a bad way.
But just because a bad person championed the idea does not make the idea itself bad.
But just because a bad person championed the idea does not make the idea itself bad.
You mean like Hitler bringing the Germans out of a horrible Depression? The End rarely justifies the means if anyone's liberty or freedoms are taken from them. That is the thrust of the AGW cult. Stealing from the middle class to enrich the elite class.
Gary says, "That is the thrust of the AGW cult. Stealing from the middle class to enrich the elite class."
At it's highest level, at it's most theoretical and successful level, sure, that might be the end result.
BUT WE BOTH KNOW IT WILL NEVER GET TO THAT POINT.
Hate" the GW Cult." Hate AlGore.
Your beef is with the people behind the method, and the methods used.
So don't take it out on the little people who have taken smart steps to be helpful.
Don't hate the idea of polluting less, being a better steward of the planet, and making small sacrifices in your own life to help the Earf stay clean and habitable.
"The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality was informed this week that the Arizona Portland Cement Co. failed a second round of testing for emissions of hazardous air pollutants at the company's Rillito plant near Tucson. The latest round of testing, performed in January 2003 by the company, is designed to ensure that the facility complies with federal standards governing the emissions of dioxins and furans, which are byproducts of the manufacturing process.
before I moved closer to work, I was paying for 50,000 miles a year between 6 vehicles. I did that for 4 years plus. Now it's about 25,000 miles a year. Only 7500 are work commute miles. How $3-4 a day for gas turns into $12,000 a year is why gas mileage hardly matters in the entire cost of owning. My new 4 cyl is $3 a day round trip. My old car is $4 a day for same. I can't even buy a McD's coffee with the difference.
Yes, but that applies to the situation in this country currently.
There are lots of ways to change this cost scenario where running costs and maintenance cost can be increased prohibitively to force people off the road.
How about an increasing fuel escalator duty automatically appplied at x percent above the rate of inflation every year, environmental surcharges on disposing of used oil and tires etc., a "carbon tax" based on mileage travelled, and then top it off with mandated replacement of ALL rubber parts for vehicles older than three years or somesuch tactic designed to make older cars uneconomical to keep on the road.
By the way ALL of these ideas are promoted as being "good for us all" and are in practice currently somewhere around the globe.
And if we allow the crooks and the obstinately gullible to sleep walk us into these scenarios with the "best of intentions" the cost structure of owning personal mobility will be so high that much will be lost for us all soon thereafter.
larsb: Wishing that CO2 were the only thing coming out of exhaust pipes....
As I said in my post, the real pollutants are already regulated by the Clean Air Act, and have been declining for decades. No one is ignoring those pollutants.
P.S. And in addition, it has been proven neither direction that CO2 is or is not a contributor to a warmer climate.
Why not err on the side that gives us other benefits too?
Living in a house with less effective heating, ventilation and air conditioning (or, without any air conditioning at all), and driving a more cramped car at less safe, slower speeds, doesn't constitute a "benefit" as most people understand the word.
So far, the proposals I've seen to address manmade global warming all involve people accepting that type of "benefit."
Well, unless you are Al Gore, George Soros or an A-List Hollywood celebrity who can either afford more expensive houses and cars, or have enough money to buy your way out of the new regulations and statutes.
Comments
Not even close. I think your opinion of man is much over rated.
The energy released in an average hurricane (Category 2) is equivalent to the energy of a half-million atomic bombs.
http://www.farmersalmanac.com/weather/a/how-much-do-you-know-about-hurricanes
They're not even talking about a storm like Katrina, just a simple Category 2 storm.
You might also find this educational as to the power of the sun.
Within 6 hours just the deserts alone (not counting the oceans) absorb the anount of energy that mankind burns in 1 year! Thus one of the major factors in global temperatures is if the sun is just slightly more or less active each year! Just a 1% change in solar activity would be 3 days of energy (3/365). Each day of enmergy is 4X that created by humans. So if the sun just burned 1% faster, the energy hitting the deserts would be 12X the amount of energy man consumes each year!
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/innovation/2010/0305/1224265343779.html
That is less than 1% of the energy of the Chile earthquake; that is what we've been telling you for days.
we could devastate the population
Because man directs that energy at population centers, not because it is anywhere near as powerful as natural phenomenon. A hurricane more powerful than the current global nuclear arsenal may kill no humans, because it is at sea.
Can Man equal the power of a Category 5 Hurricane? Easily
I think we've proven you've got things backwards. Care to find a reputable link that says man can equal the power of a Category 5 hurricane?
The non-science boys who have paid some tier 3 school to teach them all about science have been had,and I always suggest they see a lawyer to see if they can get some sort of refund.
Guys with grid science degrees(Im in that sub-category,by the way) laugh and laugh at the science idiots and their non senscical garbage they throw out to everyone that stinks right off the bat,but the shrill groupies that follow their every move have the com most of the time,so we just laugh like he-- at them.
NASA,= Never a Straight Answer because they cannot give one,they are not allowed tier 1 protocol.
Its funny to see the screamers and manipulators and emotional outbursts of a pregnant mom all coming out of "Dudes" with a five -o-clock shadow.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
My point was and is that Man can do plenty of damage to the Earf. And he can.
Slight correction, and he has
No one is disputing our potential to pollute or damage the earth. We have made rivers and lakes unsuitable for use by man with pollution. We have made the air unhealthy to breath. We have cut down rain forests that provide the oxygen we need to survive.
However, over the last 40 years we have also cleaned up the air and water to acceptable levels in most cases. There are still some areas that need work. I don't believe automobiles sold in the USA today should be on that list. We have reached the point of diminishing returns with regards to auto emissions. LEV, ULEV, SULEV, PZEV. What's next? For some people the only alternative is to get rid of the personal automobile completely. I hope that does not happen in my lifetime.
I enjoy driving on roads that are not cluttered with bumper to bumper traffic. Driving on TX 90 from El Paso to Del Rio was wonderful. 1000s of antelope and not another car for hours. Quaint little towns with people enjoying the quiet life. US 60 through KY and MO are wonderful drives. The automobile more than any other invention has made life better for Americans. I will resist any attempts to steal that bit of pleasure from our lives. And I do not believe they change the climate one iota.
For which credit goes to the EPA and the agencies it manages.
Gary says, "Driving on TX 90 from El Paso to Del Rio was wonderful. 1000s of antelope and not another car for hours. Quaint little towns with people enjoying the quiet life. US 60 through KY and MO are wonderful drives. The automobile more than any other invention has made life better for Americans. I will resist any attempts to steal that bit of pleasure from our lives. And I do not believe they change the climate one iota. "
You can make that same trip on a bicycle, or a horse, or walking, or on a Segway (with several spare batteries). Gas-powered Cars are not the only way to get around.
You are right. A diesel-powered vehicle is far superior to anything burning gasoline. On that trip through TX I was driving a MB diesel Sprinter RV that weighed 8500 lbs. It got 25 MPG. What alternative is offered to even come close to that. You think a horse would pollute less? You are obviously not listening. What other invention by man has done more to give US mobility, than the automobile? Sure if you are in good health you can quit your job and circle the globe walking or riding a bike. Tell us how your trip to visit family in TX goes on your bike or Segway.
Just as an example. Walking 16 hours a day it would take about 20 days to reach Del Rio TX. Or 16 hours driving. The cost of lodging alone would far surpass the cost of diesel fuel for that trip. You can be a Forrest Gump and live in a cave. I prefer the modern conveniences man has developed. The car being number one on the list.
It doesn't matter what else you do to lessen your carbon foot print, that AC has got to go. No more excuses !!
Gosh it is fun telling other people how to live !!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Road Transportation Emerges as Key Driver of Warming
In their analysis, motor vehicles emerged as the greatest contributor to atmospheric warming now and in the near term. Cars, buses, and trucks release pollutants and greenhouse gases that promote warming, while emitting few aerosols that counteract it.
The researchers found that the burning of household biofuels -- primarily wood and animal dung for home heating and cooking -- contribute the second most warming. And raising livestock, particularly methane-producing cattle, contribute the third most.
On the other end of the spectrum, the industrial sector releases such a high proportion of sulfates and other cooling aerosols that it actually contributes a significant amount of cooling to the system. And biomass burning -- which occurs mainly as a result of tropical forest fires, deforestation, savannah and shrub fires -- emits large amounts of organic carbon particles that block solar radiation.
The new analysis offers policy makers and the public a far more detailed and comprehensive understanding of how to mitigate climate change most effectively, Unger and colleagues assert. "Targeting on-road transportation is a win-win-win," she said. "It's good for the climate in the short term and long term, and it's good for our health."
I know you agree COMPLETELY, Gary, right? With both the source and the conclusion?
If A/C got "outlawed" I would adapt, like everyone else in town.
You could show US all how environmentally astute you are by not using electricity or any other form of power. Solar cells do pollute China during mfg. Building any car pollutes and the Hybrids more than the rest.
I know you agree COMPLETELY, Gary, right? With both the source and the conclusion?
I do not believe much coming from NASA. They are begging for their life from this administration. You think they would get their budget needs met if they blew the whistle killing Cap N Trade legislation?
The latest pseudo science to hit US is this business that transportation and not industry are the culprits causing GW. How convenient is that? Target the little guy owning a car, and let the big guys continue to pollute. The way I read those new findings. Coal, fossil fuels & Biomass used to manufacture and produce electricity actually are putting out aerosols and sulfates that block the sun and cool the earth. Much easier to believe than the supposed consensus of the last 20 years. With China building factories and electric generating plants on a weekly basis. All powered with coal. It stands to reason that it has something to do with the lack of warming over the last 15 years. In fact we need a few more cars putting out more GHG to balance out the effect of increased manufacturing in the developing countries.
Like I have said before - I use 40% less power and probably 40% less gasoline than most families and homes my size.
When everyone else catches up, I'll do more.
That's a problem for the warming crowd. When the river catches on fire, it's pretty obvious that that's not a normal condition (unless it's the river Lethe, and not the one in Katmai). When the ice melts or the storms get worse or the birds migrate further north, it's hard to take a glance and figure out if there's a climate related cause, a pattern or if it's just a one-off weather event.
And if it is a problem, the treatment will take years (decades?) to show any results.
The homeless sleeping in the parks, picking scraps from the dumpsters are way ahead of you. You are doing much better than the leaders of the AGW cult. So I guess being in the middle is good enough.
I am doing my part to balance out the Climate. I am burning a wheel barrow load of wood a day in my Obama stove. Saving on Electricity and Propane. What do you think? Do I get a prize.. :shades:
I don't see many cars at the North Pole. I guess that ice is melting by itself !!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
That's a joke, right?
For a more stable climate?
I would !!
Here is an example you can understand. The average commute in So CA is 32 miles each way or 64 miles round trip. The TCO on a 2010 Prius according to Edmunds is 61 cents per mile. Or $39.04 per commute day to own. Sad part is a lot of our cost is gas tax at 65 cents per gallon in CA. Much of it subsidizes the moochers riding the bus. With many empty or near empty buses mass transit is far from green.
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2010/toyota/prius/101161783/cto.html
However, to reduce smog, one must reduce overall levels of traffic. Thus, the "few bucks here and there" become increases designed to make private motoring so cost-prohibitive that the economically disadvantaged strata of society are forced into public transport.
Don't believe me? Look at what is happening in the UK.
The problem with that strategy here would be much greater that what is being realised over there.
Stable? It's a relative, subjective term but the Earth's climate, continents, coastlines, and such are not really stable. And certainly the Earth's magnetic field and the amount of solar radiation are now known to be quite unstable.
By examining pots from prehistory to modern times, geologist John Shaw of the University of Liverpool in England has discovered just how dramatically the field has changed. "When we plot the results from the ceramics," he notes, "we see a rapid fall as we come toward the present day. The rate of change is higher over the last 300 years than it has been for any time in the past 5,000 years. It's going from a strong field down to a weak field, and it's doing so very quickly."
At the present rate, Earth's magnetic field could be gone within a few centuries, exposing the planet to the relentless blast of charged particles from space with unpredictable consequences for the atmosphere and life. Other possibilities: the field could stop weakening and begin to strengthen, or it could weaken to the point that it suddenly flips polarity—that is, compasses begin to point to the South Magnetic Pole.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/about.html
The strength of the Earth's magnetic field has decreased 10 percent over the past 150 years,
The weakening -- if coupled with a subsequently large influx of radiation in the form of protons streaming from the sun -- can also affect the chemistry of the atmosphere, said Charles Jackman of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnetic_031212.html
Hmmm ... things don't seem too stable in nature if you ask me. Let's see more radiational energy is penetrating deeper into the atmosphere. I bet that might affect the temperature! BTW - the South Atlantic Anomaly referred to, is getting bigger every year; buy stock in companies making SPF 10,000+
Still a lot of money.
Why don't we hear about this concern? because we can't chastise mankind? and there's no money to be made off it? or way to control the populace? The Green-Crowd certainly don't want to portray nature as killing off millions of people each year, and decimating many species. Wasn't it very natural when that asteroid 65 million years ago, wiped out 70% of the species on Earth? It also wouldn't do the Green movement much good, if it were pointed out that the Earth is a vibrant planet, rich in life even after a cataclysm like that. No it would do no good to point out that the Earth is not hurt even by the most horrendous of events.
Norris speculates it took about 15 million years before the planet and surviving species started recovering from the impact that also destroyed 70 percent of other species.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/science/03/08/dinosaurs.asteroid/index.html?hpt=Sbi- n
That's why it's still a topic of discussion. It it were settled already, there would be nothing to talk about.
We already regulate the real pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Levels of those pollutants have been declining for decades, and will continue to decline, as newer, cleaner vehicles replace older, dirtier ones.
P.S. And in addition, it has been proven neither direction that CO2 is or is not a contributor to a warmer climate.
Why not err on the side that gives us other benefits too?
While you are certainly entitle to do things like tell your children a white-lie such as "you better be good because Santa's watching and he'll bring you gifts", it is not acceptable to create a story about 1 unproven theory, to support some other cause.
Most people really don't want to be lied to by scientists that AGW is almost certain, if it really isn't. While people will wholeheartedly agree that pollution is bad, everyone realizes that our actions cause pollution, and people have different comfort levels of what is acceptable amounts of pollution.
So for people like you who think the current acceptable norm of pollution is too high, and you're willing to not only change your lifestyle, but are okay with white-lies, so that pollution will be reduced, I say it is deceitful and wrong. People are willing to put up with the negatives of some pollution - the current pollution of today, in return for the benefits of their actions.
That's about as wrong as our government having used the WMD theory in Iraq, to start a war when 1 of the main reasons for the war was to kill Saddam Hussein!
I think it boils down to the fact that a lot of "deniers" are just people who object to being told how to live their lives.
I think that's admirable, to a degree.
For example, guvmint tells us not to go without seatbelts (for our own good) not to use illegal drugs (for our own good) not to kill people, not to steal, not to this and that.
I see being "told" by the guvmint to conserve energy and don't be wasteful, don't pollute more than your share, be a better steward of our little portion of the Earf, REGARDLESS OF THE RATIONALE they use, as a good thing for every American.
So what if SOME of the people who want that also have lied to get money? Forget them and their rationale.
I don't conserve and preach small carbon footprints to serve AlGore or IPCC.
I do it to serve my kids and their kids in the future.
Because when the issue is someday settled, i.e. the issue of "is Man's activity making the Earf warmer in a BAD way?" then I am in a winner position either way:
If Man WAS affecting it, I did my share.
If Man WAS NOT affecting it, I still contributed to lower pollution levels and paid less for my fossil fuel usage.
So I made the right decision EITHER WAY.
Ask yourself: Have You?
C'mon, we know you have a little grotto in your back yard with a statue of Al Gore. A little pond with a couple Koi with a place to kneel down. :shades:
If an individual wants to do that it is fine with me...but don't ask me to help pay for it. It is sometimes called the law of diminishing returns. I call it common sense...which seems to be sadly lacking with the warmists.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I would chastise anyone who:
- told people not to go in the woods because they are probably bears there; when the real reason they don't want people there is because they litter and tramp the vegetation.
- told people they can't go out for a drink, maybe wanting prohibition, in order to keep people from driving DUI.
- told people they couldn't carry a gun, because they don't like it and think the streets would be safer.
and so forth.
Simply because you don't like the effect others have on the planet, does not give anyone the right to use pretentious reasoning. While I did not like Saddam Hussein, it was reprehensible of our leaders to use the false scientific case of WMD in Iraq, as an excuse to get Hussein. Do you support that sort of societal manipulation? It doesn't hurt to lie (or fudge the truth), for a good cause?
Most wars got started that way. This whole AGW could evolve into a war between the Haves and the Have Not countries. Our relations with China are becoming more strained. AGW is a big part of the strain.
BEIJING, March 10 (Reuters) - China's top climate negotiator said on Wednesday that the cause of global warming was still not clear but the problems it was creating were so serious that the world must anyway act to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Xie Zhenhua, vice-chairman of the powerful National Development and Reform Commission, also warned the United States it should not use domestic divisions over climate change as an excuse to pass its responsibilities off onto other countries.
Such as shoving the dirty work onto 3rd world countries. Solar Cells, CFLs, Hybrid batteries, anything with mercury content.
Sure you can.
But there is not a lot of effort required to live cleaner and recycle more.
Sure there are. Mistakes have been made.
But when you look at it like "doing this helps ME also" it is not so hard to justify.
Sure it is. AlGore and his ilk deserve derision for that. Their methods are/were deplorable at times.
But it STILL does not change the or affect the POSSIBILITY that Man's activity is causing things to warm up, in a bad way.
But just because a bad person championed the idea does not make the idea itself bad.
You mean like Hitler bringing the Germans out of a horrible Depression? The End rarely justifies the means if anyone's liberty or freedoms are taken from them. That is the thrust of the AGW cult. Stealing from the middle class to enrich the elite class.
At it's highest level, at it's most theoretical and successful level, sure, that might be the end result.
BUT
WE
BOTH
KNOW
IT
WILL
NEVER
GET
TO
THAT
POINT.
Hate" the GW Cult."
Hate AlGore.
Your beef is with the people behind the method, and the methods used.
So don't take it out on the little people who have taken smart steps to be helpful.
Don't hate the idea of polluting less, being a better steward of the planet, and making small sacrifices in your own life to help the Earf stay clean and habitable.
Maybe that's why the CO2 levels have not risen as high as they likely would have.
More people means more concrete.
"The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality was informed this week that the Arizona Portland Cement Co. failed a second round of testing for emissions of hazardous air pollutants at the company's Rillito plant near Tucson. The latest round of testing, performed in January 2003 by the company, is designed to ensure that the facility complies with federal standards governing the emissions of dioxins and furans, which are byproducts of the manufacturing process.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
There are lots of ways to change this cost scenario where running costs and maintenance cost can be increased prohibitively to force people off the road.
How about an increasing fuel escalator duty automatically appplied at x percent above the rate of inflation every year, environmental surcharges on disposing of used oil and tires etc., a "carbon tax" based on mileage travelled, and then top it off with mandated replacement of ALL rubber parts for vehicles older than three years or somesuch tactic designed to make older cars uneconomical to keep on the road.
By the way ALL of these ideas are promoted as being "good for us all" and are in practice currently somewhere around the globe.
And if we allow the crooks and the obstinately gullible to sleep walk us into these scenarios with the "best of intentions" the cost structure of owning personal mobility will be so high that much will be lost for us all soon thereafter.
As I said in my post, the real pollutants are already regulated by the Clean Air Act, and have been declining for decades. No one is ignoring those pollutants.
P.S. And in addition, it has been proven neither direction that CO2 is or is not a contributor to a warmer climate.
Why not err on the side that gives us other benefits too?
Living in a house with less effective heating, ventilation and air conditioning (or, without any air conditioning at all), and driving a more cramped car at less safe, slower speeds, doesn't constitute a "benefit" as most people understand the word.
So far, the proposals I've seen to address manmade global warming all involve people accepting that type of "benefit."
Well, unless you are Al Gore, George Soros or an A-List Hollywood celebrity who can either afford more expensive houses and cars, or have enough money to buy your way out of the new regulations and statutes.