PDA

View Full Version : Going Green is it a Farce?


kycat2007
11-11-2007, 07:55 PM
I was reading an article from the founder of the Weather Channel and he says that the global warming effect is bogus. He satated that their is no indication that the earth is getting hotter. He stated that the hottest year was like 1938. He noted that it is a conspiracy for money making with companies like GE and Enron. Did you know that GE gets government supplements for their wind energy and solar windows? Enron used to get it before it was purchased by GE. Wind power?? Obsolete energy and they are gauranteed to make profits for it. It is funny how they start throwing the advertising around after they purchase this entity.
Gore and his stance and how much does his house use energy wise?
Corn for fuel? This is not a cheap product to refine. Doesn't corn farmers get backing from the gov as well? Who owns these farms? I say rich people and politicians.
This is a shame but I guess the buck is driving it. As we pay high prices in taxes and at the pump while they put it in their pockets.:mad: :mad:

TX.X-30 fan
11-11-2007, 08:15 PM
:love: :love: :worthy: :worthy: Now that's the way to start a thread!!!!

milkmania
11-11-2007, 08:24 PM
I'm telling you guys, here's the problem!

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031200a.htm

During the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin considered proposing that elected government officials not be paid for their service. Other Founding Fathers, however, decided otherwise.
From 1789 to 1815, members of Congress received only a per diem (daily payment) of $6.00 while in session. Members began receiving an annual salary in 1815, when they were paid $1,500 per year.
Congress: Leadership Members' Salary (110th Congress)
Leaders of the House and Senate are paid a higher salary than rank-and-file members.
Senate Leadership
Majority Leader - $183,500 Minority Leader - $183,500

House Leadership
Speaker of the House - $212,100
Majority Leader - $183,500
Minority Leader - $183,500

milkmania
11-11-2007, 08:26 PM
take the money away from the politicians and see who stays....
LINK--------> House and Senate Salaries (http://www.thecapitol.net/FAQ/payandperqs.htm)

TX.X-30 fan
11-11-2007, 08:26 PM
Wind
Corn
Grass
Solar
Tater Tot Grease? :D

None of this crap works without large subsides.

While our congress worries about funding health care for children of parents making 82,000 yr. until they are 25, We sit back and take it in the backside for fuel. The decision to not utilize our domestic energy reserves is not an accident.

Maristar210
11-11-2007, 08:34 PM
I think it is a farce. Liberal media has brainwashed so many people. It is a shame people waste thier passion on issues created by morons....

bigmac
11-11-2007, 08:41 PM
take the money away from the politicians and see who stays....
LINK--------> House and Senate Salaries (http://www.thecapitol.net/FAQ/payandperqs.htm)

A better idea, IMHO, is term limits. One six-year term for president, two 4 year terms for congress, two 6 year terms for senate. Then maybe we'd be able to get back to Jefferson's vision of citizen legislators, and those guys would spend more time serving their constituents and less time trying to get reelected.

TX.X-30 fan
11-11-2007, 09:03 PM
A better idea, IMHO, is term limits. One six-year term for president, two 4 year terms for congress, two 6 year terms for senate. Then maybe we'd be able to get back to Jefferson's vision of citizen legislators, and those guys would spend more time serving their constituents and less time trying to get reelected.



That is exactly what we need!!!!!!!! I was never a term limits guy, but there in no way to stop these men now. We can at-least stop this. :D

29017

FlatBoard
11-11-2007, 09:10 PM
X-30 you are the master!!

(great photo work)

TX.X-30 fan
11-11-2007, 09:24 PM
X-30 you are the master!!

(great photo work)



How's that stereo sound?????????????? I would guess EAR PEIRCING. :D :D

FlatBoard
11-11-2007, 09:31 PM
How's that stereo sound?????????????? I would guess EAR PEIRCING. :D :D


What did you say??

TX.X-30 fan
11-11-2007, 09:43 PM
HOW DOES THE STEREO SOUND!!!!!What did you say?? :D

FlatBoard
11-11-2007, 09:57 PM
HOW DOES THE STEREO SOUND!!!!! :D


Heard ya that time!!

It sounds ten times better than it looks!! That's just my opinion and I think it looks great.

I have been banned from three docks unless I play Jimmy Buffet's Margaritaville :D

TX.X-30 fan
11-11-2007, 10:04 PM
Heard ya that time!!

It sounds ten times better than it looks!! That's just my opinion and I think it looks great.

I have been banned from three docks unless I play Jimmy Buffet's Margaritaville :D

Don't change a thing its tweeked!!!! :D :D

3event
11-11-2007, 11:10 PM
Here's a good article about the "Corporate Sustainability Advocate" at Aspen Skiing Company > a guru himself now disillusioned with corporate green efforts:

"I've succeeded in doing a lot of sexy projects yet utterly failed in what I set out to do," Schendler says. "How do you really green your company? It's almost f------ impossible."

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_44/b4056001.htm?chan=search

Jesus_Freak
11-12-2007, 03:34 AM
Hey 3event, quick question about your signature. Are you saying that you would rather be scrubbing carpet in your MC than scrubbing carpet on a golf course, or just being on the golf course in general?:D

3event
11-12-2007, 09:36 AM
trying to work Bill Murray into my answer......can't...

when people ask if I golf, I say that summer is short here and it would be shame to waste a perfectly good boating day by going out on the golf course!

TMCNo1
11-12-2007, 10:12 AM
I am thinking about painting everything I got green! Will it lower the price of vehicle fuel and our light bill?

Upper Michigan Prostar190
11-12-2007, 10:14 AM
Does anyone know if Hoosier Bob is drinking green beer? me and Lakey were wondering.....

Jerseydave
11-12-2007, 11:27 AM
Corn farmers are raking in big profits...........for now. Once the government stops supporting the corn industry, corn prices will fall sharply. Higher corn prices are hurting our food industry right now. Beef, chicken, turkey, dairy, cereal prices just to name a few have gone up alot this year because of higher feed prices for animals. We pay more than ever for these items, and the making of bio-fuel has not even made a dent in our fuel prices. (higher then ever!) You can't buy bio-diesel or E-85 in many parts of the country, so we get no relief from that production at all. It cost too much to extract sugar from corn from what I'm told. Brazil has the right idea, sugar cane converted to fuel. Much cheaper to produce than corn.

stuartmcnair
11-12-2007, 12:07 PM
does that mean I am helping save the environment?

Maristar210
11-12-2007, 12:23 PM
UMP's junk is green, does that count?

3event
11-12-2007, 01:01 PM
Having a teak platform...
Using green binding lube...
Building your wakeboard tower out of green treated lumber...
Using low power consumption LEDs in your kickin' wakeboat instead of conventional lighting...

More "green" or less "green"??????



FARCE=Renewable Energy Credits, Carbon Offsets, palatial energy hogging homes and private jet travels of pro-Green politicians.

REAL=Buying energy saving technologies that will save you money, and/or improve your competitive position. The one good thing you can say is that "Green" does drive some innovation.

TMCNo1
11-12-2007, 01:03 PM
does that mean I am helping save the environment?


Corn is the way to go!
Back in the day, people used corn cobs in the outhouse instead of toilet paper, but nobody ever praised our ancestors for it. They were way ahead of their time, since then, the world has gone to the dogs!:confused:

shepherd
11-12-2007, 01:11 PM
I'm telling you guys, here's the problem!

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031200a.htm

Some might argue that our country's leaders are underpaid. If you want the best and brightest to run this country, you need to pay them enough to attract the talent. Otherwise, they'll go off and work in the private sector for 10 times the salary. How to pay for higher salaries? Increase the corporate income taxes as required.

That's only the first step. The second step is to educate and convince the voters to vote for the smartest and best candidates to be our leaders, and not just the guy or lady with the whitest teeth.

Bruce
11-12-2007, 02:48 PM
I spend my "greenback dollars" Does that me me an environmentalist?

6ballsisall
11-12-2007, 03:09 PM
Some might argue that our country's leaders are underpaid. If you want the best and brightest to run this country, you need to pay them enough to attract the talent. Otherwise, they'll go off and work in the private sector for 10 times the salary. How to pay for higher salaries? Increase the corporate income taxes as required.

That's only the first step. The second step is to educate and convince the voters to vote for the smartest and best candidates to be our leaders, and not just the guy or lady with the whitest teeth.

I have to agree w/ Shep here. I don't think these guys are overpaid at all. Most of them would do well in a C level corporate environment. Businesses know it and do it, if you want to attract the best, you have to fork over the dough.......

lanier92prostar
11-12-2007, 03:17 PM
You have to remember when you are talking pay is that a lot of the higher up politicians get their daily living expenses for free in that we are paying their salary and their cost of living. I would be for raising thier salaries if they paid the same cost of living as we do.

sand2snow22
11-12-2007, 03:43 PM
You have to remember when you are talking pay is that a lot of the higher up politicians get their daily living expenses for free in that we are paying their salary and their cost of living. I would be for raising thier salaries if they paid the same cost of living as we do.


I don't know why they do it, it's not for the money. Maybe for the perks and the ego :D

Monte
11-12-2007, 04:33 PM
I don't know why they do it, it's not for the money. Maybe for the perks and the ego :D

I feel like most of them get into politics for the right reasons, then they are corrupted by the perks and the new ego:confused:

starman205
11-12-2007, 05:31 PM
E85 gas is a joke!!!!!!!! Our local NBC TV station (KARE 11) did a test. After driving 331 miles in a flex fuel Dodge Durango they averaged 12.6 MPG with E85. They then drained the tank and filled it with regular unleaded and drove back to the station and averaged 20.4 MPG. Milage was 39% worse with E85 gasoline. They stated that Consumer reports did a similar test getting 27 percent worse milage with E85. Atthe time of their test E85 gasoline was only 19% cheaper than unleaded regular.

Maristar210
11-12-2007, 05:32 PM
I feel like most of them get into politics for the right reasons, then they are corrupted by the perks and the new ego:confused:


You have the ego part right in most cases...

TX.X-30 fan
11-12-2007, 07:23 PM
E85 gas is a joke!!!!!!!! Our local NBC TV station (KARE 11) did a test. After driving 331 miles in a flex fuel Dodge Durango they averaged 12.6 MPG with E85. They then drained the tank and filled it with regular unleaded and drove back to the station and averaged 20.4 MPG. Milage was 39% worse with E85 gasoline. They stated that Consumer reports did a similar test getting 27 percent worse milage with E85. Atthe time of their test E85 gasoline was only 19% cheaper than unleaded regular.




What kind of mileage can you get with used tater tot grease?????



:D :D

sand2snow22
11-12-2007, 07:28 PM
What kind of mileage can you get with used tater tot grease?????



:D :D

I know you being funny, but I have a friend, well he's actually not a friend b/c he owns a Supra, anyway he tows his boat with a H1 that runs on straight vegetable oil. Not biodiesel or a biodiesel blend, straight McDonalds grease!! I believe he gets the same mileage!!

kycat2007
11-13-2007, 01:46 AM
Lets see parties at the White House, monies from lobby groups like GE, retirement benefits for life, trips paid for under the guise of business, elusive investment opportunities that they are privied to, sporting event tickets, perdium benefits, great expense account,

They only care about themselves and nothing more. And the reason we sit and watch them do it is because we don’t know what to do, and they know it. They know that once they’re elected we will go on back to our lives and not keep up with what they’re doing in Washington, so they can get away with murder.

Politicians have a job where they don’t even have to show up for work if they don’t want to. They can give themselves a raise whenever they want to. They make the same salary when they retire as when they did when they were in Washington. And they make it until the day they die. They ride to work everyday in a limousine. They get all kinds of perks for being a politician; perks that they voted themselves to have. They are so out of touch with reality they can’t see straight.

Even when they go to prison, it’s not a prison like you and I would go to. No, it’s a minimum security prison, a prison where they have a golf course inside the prison walls. Each cell has its own recliner chair, telephone, computer hook-up, they can call out for pizza whenever they like. They have unlimited visitation rights. The prison politicians get sent to is better than our homes and they voted to build them and we pay for them with our tax dollars.

Every Senator every Congressman, every Representative of the House does great things for their state, but they do lousy things for their country. A Senator in NC got a tee pot museum built in a mountain city and because of that she got elected again. She also voted to give the oil companies a tax break and to give illegal immigrants amnesty. But that doesn’t matter. She gave NC a tea pot museum that cost tax payers about $3-million and the people of NC love her because of the tea pot museum. Bless her heart, if she has one. This is the epitome of pork barreling.

I could go on ranting about this, but instead I’ll just stop and say, wake up America. We’re losing our country and it’s time we took it back from the crooked politicians who are bastardizing our country and its people.

It’s time for a revolution. It’s time that someone put up a website that lists each senator, congressman and representative of the house; what they voted for, how much the lobbyists gave them to vote that way and how many days they showed up for work. Then we can see for ourselves if they’re doing the job we elected them to do. And if they’re not, we can vote them out.

MYMC
11-13-2007, 10:01 AM
The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.

(a special thanks to Eric Idle)

88 PS190
11-13-2007, 10:49 AM
What kind of mileage can you get with used tater tot grease?????
:D :D

HUGE!

Ethanol has vastly different ignition requirements than does gasoline. And when treated properly can make good power, but ethanol requires far more volume of fuel in order to power, which is automatically going to lower your fuel economy, ALKY is a great race fuel (particularly when combined with large nitromethane content) but for running a car not so great...

Additionally in America we have this idea that we'll use Corn to make ethanol, that is rediculous. Ethanol is made by yeasts converting glucose. Corn stores its energy in starch- therefore you must process the corn to break down the starch (costs $$$) then you must ferment the sugars (costs $$$) then you need to distill it to get the water out of the stuff... Did I mention water and alcohol are tight with each other and not good in a tank??

Use of ethanol requires we make alot more corn and divert it from feed to fuel therefore its being more expensive to feed animals and the cost of meat goes up, with out lowering te cost of fuel.

As far as no global warming, there is... the world does do it naturally, but we can accelerate that, and we can see it happening it exists. It will happen, and we probably will take the hit, so we should do what we can to slow it down.

Tater tot fuel! the wave of the future my man. Biodiesel is powerful just like diesel fuel is, tons of btu's very small amounts of fuel required per combustion event to get that power, and fewer combustion events due to the nice low idle and the fact that you're rarely driving over 4K rpm. I know in my gas car I try to keep it over 4K when i'm driving for oomph and that on the highway I'm over 4K in fifth gear going 80. This is where the biodiesel would really help. Problems with it. Makes you hungry to breath the fumes. And it can gel when it gets cold, and has a shelf liife that needs to be stabilized if you keep it too long.

less cost to refine it! - good
Uses renewable resources - good (some speculate the ability to use algaes as the oil source.
Environmentally - not worse than regular diesel, possibly better
Car converstion - all those old benz basically require new rubber fuel lines. a tank heater if you don't stabilize the biodiesel, some have a small tank insulated with small amount of heat to start, and then a heater run off the engine for the main tank to warm the bulk up.

Fun stuff right?

wind - kills migratory birds
solar- expensive short life - need to track sun which means not flush against buildings etc.

88 PS190
11-13-2007, 10:54 AM
The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.

(a special thanks to Eric Idle)

used in monte python and the meaning of life correct? during the living organ donation bit?

MYMC
11-13-2007, 10:59 AM
used in monte python and the meaning of life correct? during the living organ donation bit?
You are correct sir!

Here is the entire song...I listen to it all the time:D

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.

Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,
But out by us it's just three thousand light years wide.
We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
We go round every two hundred million years,
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.

The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.

TX.X-30 fan
11-13-2007, 12:13 PM
HUGE!

This is where the biodiesel would really help. Problems with it. Makes you hungry to breath the fumes. Fun stuff right?

wind - kills migratory birds
solar- expensive short life - need to track sun which means not flush against buildings etc.






Great post PS190, Good info but that hungry part made me spit coffee on my keyboard!!!! :D

Workin' 4 Toys
11-13-2007, 12:28 PM
http://www.greasecar.com/

Note: Silverado....
http://alternativefuels.about.com/od/2007naturalgasvehicles/a/2007CNGhub.htm

http://www.goldenfuelsystems.com/

Considering this myself...
http://www.e85carbs.com/

TMCNo1
11-13-2007, 01:35 PM
Heard in Drive-Thru lane #2!

Welcome to McDonald's, May I take your order?

Yea, please, Fill it up with Super Veggie Oil, Clean the Windshield, Check the Engine Lard and Check the Fumes in the Tires, Thank you!

Did you know this is "Free Happy Meal Friday" with the Biggie Mac Full Service Interior Clean?

No thank you, but I will take the "Double Say Cheese Grill Clean" if get a free Big Orange Blast drink!

The future holds all kinds of possibilities!

AirJunky
11-13-2007, 02:21 PM
Too funny..... the way of the future!

I work for a large restaurant supply company with a fleet of trucks. We're talking about implementing a grease pickup service. Then we'll outfit the trucks with the appropriate filters & tank heaters & burn it as our fuel. Should be interesting to see how it effects our bottom line.

Also, I was watching HGTV the other day & they were retrofitting a house with an oil burning furnace to burn veggie oil. Cost was about $5000, plus the homeowner was going to spend a lot of time collecting oil to bring home for heat. Great idea if you have the time or own a restaurant!

One thing that struck me though. It's how many people, TV shows, & articles refer to burning veggie oil as "biodiesel'. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't biodiesel what their making out of soybeans, hemp, corn, or whatever & supplementing diesel fuel with it? That & the E85 gasoline will help put farmers back to work. But burning veggie oil doesn't effect the farmers at all, but is burning garbage rather than dumping it in the landfill. Obviously both have their place in society, and it sounds like similar rigs can burn both fuels, but their not the same.

MYMC
11-13-2007, 02:32 PM
I'm sure all this "free" grease will stay that way...ha ha.

1) THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH!
2) The laws of the conservation of energy are just that...laws not guide lines depite what you may have seen on YouTube.

And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.

rcnjson
11-13-2007, 02:47 PM
E85 gas is a joke!!!!!!!! Our local NBC TV station (KARE 11) did a test. After driving 331 miles in a flex fuel Dodge Durango they averaged 12.6 MPG with E85. They then drained the tank and filled it with regular unleaded and drove back to the station and averaged 20.4 MPG. Milage was 39% worse with E85 gasoline. They stated that Consumer reports did a similar test getting 27 percent worse milage with E85. Atthe time of their test E85 gasoline was only 19% cheaper than unleaded regular.

I have, in my limited experience with E85, found this to be true also. Gas engine converted to run E85 uses approx 30% more fuel (28% in my experience) and the E85 was only 17% cheaper and the conversion isn't free either. There is only one gas station that carries the E85 close to me so that could be part of the problem, but it is unlikely you will ever save money doing the conversion. I'm not going to argue the environmental angle if it is better to burn E85 or not but stricly financially it does not make sense right now.

But...

E85 does have its place, E85 is 105 octane, and E100 is 110 octane. We took an E85 mustang to the track at the end of October and it made a pretty big difference. This is a boosted application and with the lower combustion temps of E85 we were able to make more power with a combination of more boost and more timing. The car was 11.20's on high test pump gas and got it down to a couple 10.80's on E85. Probably not the fastest E85 powered car around, but nothing to sneeze at either. I hear things about some guys in Minnesota with some fast E85 cars, they call themselves "The children of the korn".
k

88 PS190
11-13-2007, 03:08 PM
I'm sure all this "free" grease will stay that way...ha ha.

1) THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH!
2) The laws of the conservation of energy are just that...laws not guide lines depite what you may have seen on YouTube.

And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.


My arguement isn't pure cost.

What we need - Fuel produced from a renewable resource, that is not terrible in the energy requirements to refine it.

Gasoline takes alot of refinement to produce, it isn't just bubbled up from the ground as gasoline.

So we assume some cost to produce it.

Right now Biodiesels are being produced by some on a small scale by using the transetherification process in small batches on filtered cooking oil. That is not the only way to produce biodiesel. It can also be produced using an inline method, and the new methods are estimated to cost less than 6 cents a gallon to process the fuel.

I agree, no free lunch, it takes energy to make energy. Plants MAKE the energy, photosynthetic capture of photons into reduction coupled reactions to produce organic compounds and oils store a ton of energy using something we have plenty of... Sunlight (and we might be getting more go figure). Even petroleum based fuels rely on photosynthesis in the first place as their source of energy (fixed by diatoms).

Now Ethanol and biodiesel both can use crop, ethanol can be derived from most any sugar containing plant compound, the best being sugar beats and sugar cane, but most anything has starch and can be used, but you arrive at the same problems every time. Ethanol evaporates very quickly, so alot is lost, it doen't produce as much usable energy per combustion event. While its as mentions ~110 octane and allows very high compression vehicles that are E85 compliant tend to run on any mixture of fuel you throw at them, including lower octane regular pump gas (87) in order to do this you aren't using a compression ratio of 11:1 or whatever you get away with on the E100 high octane stuff. And frankly they're slipping ethanol into other fuels to boost their octane, and my e30 doesn't run the ethanol well at all (fuel econ. drops from 28 mpg to 22 mpg when I use 10% ethanol midgrade instead of regular pump gas).

You will find ethanol in ALOT of the gas you find, and us Mastercrafters well we want ethanol free fuel!

Insert expensive beef argument from before.

Fuel economy of a biodiesel vehicle remains equivalent in almost all cases as running petro diesel. Think VW 1.9 TDI in a Golf getting 49+ mpg (local girl with a bug in manual and driving what i consider very slow gets 60+ mpg)

Those are realistic number, even driven hard 45 mpg is not uncommon in a manual VW.

Mercedes 300D's tend to put out an avg of about 28-32 mpg loaded (our family has had atleast 40 mercedes benz diesels in the past 10 years some have gotten extremely good mileage, others burn excess fuel and needed tuning)

But ya, no free lunch. But if you want to "go green" sacrifices have to be made. Going green is not being able to do everything you want to do.. tho I wish.

Interesting biodiesel projects?
Crucible - bmw diesel motorcycle which set the diesel motorcycle landspeed record.


And as mastercrafters- there is a diesel engine that is VW-Audi based. If biodiesel goes further then you run into the possibility of running biofuel in your 190! rock on with that. Biodiesel is biodegradable, when was the last time you've heard that about gasoline?

And you can pour it into your bilge with out the fire hazard.

sand2snow22
11-13-2007, 03:29 PM
88 ps 190,

What about biodiesel in the new clean diesel engines? I know there is a new clean diesel fuel, too? i.e., Mercedes/VW bluetech engines, Dodge's Cummins, Freightliners, etc? Can you run biodiesel in these new engines?

MYMC
11-13-2007, 03:39 PM
My arguement isn't pure cost.
Mine either

What we need - Fuel produced from a renewable resource, that is not terrible in the energy requirements to refine It.
So somehow this all became "renewable"?

Gasoline takes alot of refinement to produce, it isn't just bubbled up from the ground as gasoline.
So cooking oil bubbles up from the ground? Damn, I keep paying for it at the store!

So we assume some cost to produce it.
Don't we always?

Right now Biodiesels are being produced by some on a small scale by using the transetherification process in small batches on filtered cooking oil. That is not the only way to produce biodiesel. It can also be produced using an inline method, and the new methods are estimated to cost less than 6 cents a gallon to process the fuel.
And what was the upfront cost...before it was cooking oil??? You know before it started bubbling up from the ground.

I agree, no free lunch, it takes energy to make energy. Plants MAKE the energy, photosynthetic capture of photons into reduction coupled reactions to produce organic compounds and oils store a ton of energy using something we have plenty of... Sunlight (and we might be getting more go figure). Even petroleum based fuels rely on photosynthesis in the first place as their source of energy (fixed by diatoms).
Yep

Now Ethanol and biodiesel both can use crop, ethanol can be derived from most any sugar containing plant compound, the best being sugar beats and sugar cane, but most anything has starch and can be used, but you arrive at the same problems every time. Ethanol evaporates very quickly, so alot is lost, it doen't produce as much usable energy per combustion event. While its as mentions ~110 octane and allows very high compression vehicles that are E85 compliant tend to run on any mixture of fuel you throw at them, including lower octane regular pump gas (87) in order to do this you aren't using a compression ratio of 11:1 or whatever you get away with on the E100 high octane stuff. And frankly they're slipping ethanol into other fuels to boost their octane, and my e30 doesn't run the ethanol well at all (fuel econ. drops from 28 mpg to 22 mpg when I use 10% ethanol midgrade instead of regular pump gas).
Well, it obvious you don't own beet farms...BTW do you own a fuel turbine?


Fuel economy of a biodiesel vehicle remains equivalent in almost all cases as running petro diesel. Think VW 1.9 TDI in a Golf getting 49+ mpg (local girl with a bug in manual and driving what i consider very slow gets 60+ mpg)

Those are realistic number, even driven hard 45 mpg is not uncommon in a manual VW.

Mercedes 300D's tend to put out an avg of about 28-32 mpg loaded (our family has had atleast 40 mercedes benz diesels in the past 10 years some have gotten extremely good mileage, others burn excess fuel and needed tuning)

But ya, no free lunch. But if you want to "go green" sacrifices have to be made. Going green is not being able to do everything you want to do.. tho I wish.

Interesting biodiesel projects?
Crucible - bmw diesel motorcycle which set the diesel motorcycle landspeed record.


And as mastercrafters- there is a diesel engine that is VW-Audi based. If biodiesel goes further then you run into the possibility of running biofuel in your 190! rock on with that. Biodiesel is biodegradable, when was the last time you've heard that about gasoline?

And you can pour it into your bilge with out the fire hazard.
Lets see...no infrastructure ( no one ever wants to talk about this one what about the impact of building the infrastructre?), unknown up front costs, narrow power band due to engine speed issues, fuel gel issues, etc & so on...but hey I can spill it on the ground and in my bilge...good news!

I have an idea...why don't we work on capturing the 75% lost energy of the good old internal combustion engine first...imagine what that would do for all these "other fuels"?

Ric
11-13-2007, 04:03 PM
http://www.greasecar.com/

Note: Silverado....
http://alternativefuels.about.com/od/2007naturalgasvehicles/a/2007CNGhub.htm

http://www.goldenfuelsystems.com/

Considering this myself...
http://www.e85carbs.com/

the flux capacitor never really worked out, but the mr.fusion might just catch on!

Workin' 4 Toys
11-13-2007, 04:50 PM
Thanks Ric.
Maybe if they just took all the time, money, and efforts spent finding and creating alternative fuels, and built a larger and more efficient way of producing gasoline.:rolleyes:
I am pretty sure I saw a few open acres along Interstate 10 they could build a few billion sq ft manufacturing facility. They might even be able to run the place off some wind turbines and solar panels if they thought hard enough about it.

Maybe not. I'll concentrate on just pluging my battery powered car into my solar powered battery charger and call it done. And don't come looking for me when I need to throw away all those batteries, they can be recycled using some other form of free energy, like the atlantic ocean perhaps?:rolleyes:

TX.X-30 fan
11-13-2007, 05:21 PM
Last Updated: Friday, 9 November 2007, 12:15 GMT

E-mail this to a friend Printable version

Brazil announces new oil reserves
By Gary Duffy
BBC News, Sao Paulo



Brazil has developed expertise in deep-sea drilling in recent years
The Brazilian government says huge new oil reserves discovered off its coast could turn the country into one of the biggest oil producers in the world.

Petrobras, Brazil's national oil company, says it believes the offshore Tupi field has between 5bn and 8bn barrels of recoverable light oil.

A senior minister said Brazilian oil production had the potential to match that of Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.

Petrobras delivered its estimate after analysing test results.

'New reality'




An Inconvienient Truth, seems the more we explore the more discover???

Leroy
11-13-2007, 09:05 PM
I'm old enough to remember the 70's when we were going to run out of gas in 5-10 years and stations were running out of gas....guess that didn't happen afterall and I agree seems every where we poke the earth oil flows out sooner or later.

Going green is cool, if it is really green, being a fool is just being a fool....

MYMC
11-14-2007, 10:33 AM
I'm old enough to remember the 70's when we were going to run out of gas in 5-10 years and stations were running out of gas....guess that didn't happen afterall and I agree seems every where we poke the earth oil flows out sooner or later.

Going green is cool, if it is really green, being a fool is just being a fool....
Perfectly stated.

captain planet
11-14-2007, 02:31 PM
E85 gas is a joke!!!!!!!! Our local NBC TV station (KARE 11) did a test. After driving 331 miles in a flex fuel Dodge Durango they averaged 12.6 MPG with E85. They then drained the tank and filled it with regular unleaded and drove back to the station and averaged 20.4 MPG. Milage was 39% worse with E85 gasoline. They stated that Consumer reports did a similar test getting 27 percent worse milage with E85. Atthe time of their test E85 gasoline was only 19% cheaper than unleaded regular.
The most unbelievable part of that is that a Durango got 20.4 mpg. If you would have said it got 15 or 16, I may have bought it. :cool:

rholmes
11-16-2007, 11:59 AM
It was probably the V6 model, not the hemi!

Ric
11-16-2007, 12:12 PM
It was probably the V6 model, not the hemi! We're all just lucky the local tv news station didn't detonate the gastank during the test.... for impact of the story.....:rolleyes: We are a very forgiving nation aren't we?
Just ask that guy who caught the foul ball in that cubs game:rolleyes: or even bruckner.

captain planet
11-16-2007, 12:24 PM
It was probably the V6 model, not the hemi!
probably 2-wheel drive as well.

ShamrockIV
11-16-2007, 12:27 PM
Could the World be getting warmer because there are more people here than ever b4 thanks to better health care and better food?

Ric
05-03-2008, 02:24 PM
Happy Saturday everyone :wavey:

TX.X-30 fan
05-03-2008, 07:50 PM
Happy Saturday everyone :wavey:




I refuse to be taken by a poorly presented lure. ;)

TX.X-30 fan
05-16-2008, 11:51 AM
Morning CP. :D:D

Ric
05-16-2008, 12:53 PM
I have a green friendly 197 for sale.

captain planet
05-16-2008, 06:24 PM
Morning CP. :D:D

So did it drive you crazy that I didn't respond to you all day when you did this? You have to work a little harder to lure me in than that. :rolleyes:

TX.X-30 fan
05-16-2008, 09:08 PM
So did it drive you crazy that I didn't respond to you all day when you did this? You have to work a little harder to lure me in than that. :rolleyes:






Duly noted, no more half ***-ed attempts my friend. :D

JohnE
05-16-2008, 11:13 PM
Just ask that guy who caught the foul ball in that cubs game:rolleyes: or even bruckner.


Who's buckner?;)

rick s.
05-19-2008, 06:30 PM
Corn is the way to go!
Back in the day, people used corn cobs in the outhouse instead of toilet paper, but nobody ever praised our ancestors for it. They were way ahead of their time, since then, the world has gone to the dogs!:confused:


Help! I'm having problems flushing the corn cobs down the toilet! What am I to do?

TX.X-30 fan
05-19-2008, 07:21 PM
Who's buckner?;)




Who's Bruckner? :confused:

Ric
05-19-2008, 07:32 PM
he owes me money

TX.X-30 fan
05-19-2008, 07:49 PM
Bad set screw transaction?

ProTour X9
05-19-2008, 08:13 PM
Looking 100 years into the future : Anti-Matter, I don't think there is any by-product.

Also, why can't they put Ozone (O3) in the atmosphere?? Or remove Carbon and CO2??

dog paw
05-19-2008, 08:52 PM
Help! I'm having problems flushing the corn cobs down the toilet! What am I to do?

Grab that sucker with both hands and snap it in half.... Stuipid fart to flush "green" eco toilets cant even hose off a good skid mark :D

TX.X-30 fan
05-19-2008, 08:55 PM
Looking 100 years into the future : Anti-Matter, I don't think there is any by-product.

Also, why can't they put Ozone (O3) in the atmosphere?? Or remove Carbon and CO2??





Because we have no affect or control over this rock we live on. ;)

panshovel68
05-19-2009, 11:29 PM
Im not sure how we can go wrong with wind energy. Each commercial turbine powers 700-1200 houses, depending on make, model and size. As for the political end of the turbines, I am clueless. But anything is better than coal!

panshovel68
05-19-2009, 11:37 PM
A few pics.

bigmac
05-20-2009, 01:07 AM
Wind turbines kill birds.

Carbon Dreams
05-20-2009, 01:19 AM
If you were to compare the human effect of CO2 in the atmosphere to natural emissions it is not even worth the effort to talk about. If CO2 in the atmosphere were a 100 story building humans account for the approximate thickness of linoleum on the basement floor.

I'm all for new technologies and new energy sources. I just don't believe in making false claims for political gains. Especially when it affects us all. If you believe in Global Warming, look to the "real" scientists in every major industrial country. They have all but stopped talking about the hype. Unfortunately we are politically controlled by the liberals. As you know, the premise of a liberal is to forcefully control things that they don't like.

Get in your boats and enjoy them while you can! Maybe someday we will have Hydrogen powered wake machines. :D

Maristar210
05-20-2009, 09:28 AM
If you were to compare the human effect of CO2 in the atmosphere to natural emissions it is not even worth the effort to talk about. If CO2 in the atmosphere were a 100 story building humans account for the approximate thickness of linoleum on the basement floor.

I'm all for new technologies and new energy sources. I just don't believe in making false claims for political gains. Especially when it affects us all. If you believe in Global Warming, look to the "real" scientists in every major industrial country. They have all but stopped talking about the hype. Unfortunately we are politically controlled by the liberals. As you know, the premise of a liberal is to forcefully control things that they don't like.

Get in your boats and enjoy them while you can! Maybe someday we will have Hydrogen powered wake machines. :D



Where is _____________ Jorski? He needs to read this.

Global warming jorski? My lake is still cold as ice water. Please send me some global warming you tireless sheep.

JimN
05-20-2009, 10:15 AM
Looking 100 years into the future : Anti-Matter, I don't think there is any by-product.

Also, why can't they put Ozone (O3) in the atmosphere?? Or remove Carbon and CO2??

When did you last hear about any hole in the ozone layer? It's not an issue anymore. Besides, we put plenty of ozone into the atmosphere. Trees/plants and the oceans remove a lot of carbon, too.

Anyone seen the show about the Earth after mankind is gone? Other than plastics, stainless steel and stonework, everything we did is reversed fairly quickly.

Craig
05-20-2009, 10:20 AM
If you were to compare the human effect of CO2 in the atmosphere to natural emissions it is not even worth the effort to talk about. If CO2 in the atmosphere were a 100 story building humans account for the approximate thickness of linoleum on the basement floor.

I'm all for new technologies and new energy sources. I just don't believe in making false claims for political gains. Especially when it affects us all. If you believe in Global Warming, look to the "real" scientists in every major industrial country. They have all but stopped talking about the hype. Unfortunately we are politically controlled by the liberals. As you know, the premise of a liberal is to forcefully control things that they don't like.

Get in your boats and enjoy them while you can! Maybe someday we will have Hydrogen powered wake machines. :D


I'm curious where this information comes from.

This board does not seem like the place to discuss this so I won't chime in much but I wanted to say a few things. If you want to discuss further with me please PM, I would be happy to give you some reading materials.

I am currently working toward a PhD in Mechanical Engineering and I work on refrigeration systems. Recently this topic has been 'all the rage' so to speak at conferences in journals and etc., even in my area. I have seen some trends in the literature, and in lecture topics at large conferences. It is sort of the 'trendy' topic at the moment and from what I can tell that is because of a few things.

1) Climate change is happening, and people are a bit alarmed.
2) There has been some breakthroughs in climate science that has sort of unified the scientific community.

Most(not all) scientists and academics are now tending to agree that climate change is real and humans are having an impact on the earth.

I think there are a lot of reasons that a majority of the general public do not feel the same way but I think it is irresponsible to dismiss all claims without even a basic knowledge of thermodynamics and heat transfer.

As far as green technologies, I say the more the better. Let's create US jobs, and free our dependence on foreign energy. Even if you think climate change is a bunch of BS it still sounds like a fine idea to me.

Ric
05-20-2009, 10:26 AM
I'm curious where this information comes from.

This board does not seem like the place to discuss this so I won't chime in much but I wanted to say a few things. If you want to discuss further with me please PM, I would be happy to give you some reading materials.

I am currently working toward a PhD in Mechanical Engineering and I work on refrigeration systems. Recently this topic has been 'all the rage' so to speak at conferences in journals and etc., even in my area. I have seen some trends in the literature, and in lecture topics at large conferences. It is sort of the 'trendy' topic at the moment and from what I can tell that is because of a few things.

1) Climate change is happening, and people are a bit alarmed.
2) There has been some breakthroughs in climate science that has sort of unified the scientific community.

Most(not all) scientists and academics are now tending to agree that climate change is real and humans are having an impact on the earth.

I think there are a lot of reasons that a majority of the general public do not feel the same way but I think it is irresponsible to dismiss all claims without even a basic knowledge of thermodynamics and heat transfer.

As far as green technologies, I say the more the better. Let's create US jobs, and free our dependence on foreign energy. Even if you think climate change is a bunch of BS it still sounds like a fine idea to me.
well, you said it... Climate change is an alarmist concoction. I'm glad scientists can measure the change in temperature and it's really impressive that academics are gathering behind this cause.. Creating US jobs based on this alarmism is treacherous, but hey anything you can sell right now that's "green" you can make a mint. It's all the rage. Create some jobs that aren't the result of regulation, and you have my attention.

JimN
05-20-2009, 10:42 AM
I'm curious where this information comes from.

This board does not seem like the place to discuss this so I won't chime in much but I wanted to say a few things. If you want to discuss further with me please PM, I would be happy to give you some reading materials.

I am currently working toward a PhD in Mechanical Engineering and I work on refrigeration systems. Recently this topic has been 'all the rage' so to speak at conferences in journals and etc., even in my area. I have seen some trends in the literature, and in lecture topics at large conferences. It is sort of the 'trendy' topic at the moment and from what I can tell that is because of a few things.

1) Climate change is happening, and people are a bit alarmed.
2) There has been some breakthroughs in climate science that has sort of unified the scientific community.

Most(not all) scientists and academics are now tending to agree that climate change is real and humans are having an impact on the earth.

I think there are a lot of reasons that a majority of the general public do not feel the same way but I think it is irresponsible to dismiss all claims without even a basic knowledge of thermodynamics and heat transfer.

As far as green technologies, I say the more the better. Let's create US jobs, and free our dependence on foreign energy. Even if you think climate change is a bunch of BS it still sounds like a fine idea to me.

What about the correlation of high solar activity to temperatures here on Earth? If CO2 is heavier than air, how much effect can it have in the upper atmosphere?

Jorski
05-20-2009, 11:45 AM
What about the correlation of high solar activity to temperatures here on Earth? If CO2 is heavier than air, how much effect can it have in the upper atmosphere?

While it is obvious to everyone that there would be a correlation between solar activity and temperature - even climate scientists are aware of this. It is well established that we have had rising temperatures during a period of waning solar activity. Further, the amount of temperature change that can be attributed to these changes (positive or negative ) are rather easily calculated and we have had temperature change far greater than would have been expected during the periods when we have had increased solar activity.

As for the "weight" theory or question that you have about C02....it's called Diffusion. Many gases and particles that make up our atmosphere have different weights. They don't lie in layers stacked according to weight; they mix together and swirl at all levels of the atmosphere. Think about it, if this were the case, carbon sequestration would be extremely easy to accomplish..but it isn't.

captain planet
05-20-2009, 11:53 AM
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

Alright, now cue TX-X-30 and Maristar210 in....



5.....



4.....



3.....


2.....



1......


0

bbymgr
05-20-2009, 12:26 PM
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

Alright, now cue TX-X-30 and Maristar210 in....



5.....



4.....



3.....


2.....



1......


0

40 minutes and counting.......................... may I have some of that popcorn?:popcorn:

Maristar210
05-20-2009, 12:28 PM
Nah.

Jorski and I agree to disagree anf that's enough for me.

Now if we could really go to work on that water temperature please? :D

Jesus_Freak
05-22-2009, 04:09 PM
...Further, the amount of temperature change that can be attributed to these changes (positive or negative ) are rather easily calculated and we have had temperature change far greater than would have been expected during the periods when we have had increased solar activity.

Temperature changes where? Do you mean a) surface water, b) surface land, or c) the huge thermal inertia of Earth's internals? For whichever is the case, please supply the means by which someone is averaging over the entire volume of interest. For example, to claim the surface water temperature is rising, one would have to do what NASA is currently doing and floating buoys in all three dimensions gather data. Interesting for us to see how those data are leaning.;)

...As for the "weight" theory or question that you have about C02....it's called Diffusion. Many gases and particles that make up our atmosphere have different weights. They don't lie in layers stacked according to weight; they mix together and swirl at all levels of the atmosphere.

Technically, it is called dispersion. Diffusion is a molecular contact transmission. Mixtures "swirling" at various length scales through turbulence is dispersion...buy hey, I knew what you meant.:)

Jesus_Freak
05-22-2009, 04:14 PM
I'm curious where this information comes from.

This board does not seem like the place to discuss this so I won't chime in much but I wanted to say a few things. If you want to discuss further with me please PM, I would be happy to give you some reading materials.

I am currently working toward a PhD in Mechanical Engineering and I work on refrigeration systems. Recently this topic has been 'all the rage' so to speak at conferences in journals and etc., even in my area. I have seen some trends in the literature, and in lecture topics at large conferences. It is sort of the 'trendy' topic at the moment and from what I can tell that is because of a few things.

1) Climate change is happening, and people are a bit alarmed.
2) There has been some breakthroughs in climate science that has sort of unified the scientific community.

Most(not all) scientists and academics are now tending to agree that climate change is real and humans are having an impact on the earth.

I think there are a lot of reasons that a majority of the general public do not feel the same way but I think it is irresponsible to dismiss all claims without even a basic knowledge of thermodynamics and heat transfer.

As far as green technologies, I say the more the better. Let's create US jobs, and free our dependence on foreign energy. Even if you think climate change is a bunch of BS it still sounds like a fine idea to me.

I fall into the "not all" category you see at the conferences.:)

Jabrew
05-22-2009, 04:31 PM
Lets go green without legislation. You want to lesson the dependence on foreign oil, drill at home but to think we will ever have alternative source of energy is a pipe dream.

Jorski
05-23-2009, 01:09 AM
Climate change odds much worse than thought
New analysis shows warming could be double previous estimates
David Chandler, MIT News Office
May 19, 2009

The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees. This can be compared to a median projected increase in the 2003 study of just 2.4 degrees. The difference is caused by several factors rather than any single big change. Among these are improved economic modeling and newer economic data showing less chance of low emissions than had been projected in the earlier scenarios. Other changes include accounting for the past masking of underlying warming by the cooling induced by 20th century volcanoes, and for emissions of soot, which can add to the warming effect. In addition, measurements of deep ocean temperature rises, which enable estimates of how fast heat and carbon dioxide are removed from the atmosphere and transferred to the ocean depths, imply lower transfer rates than previously estimated.

Prinn says these and a variety of other changes based on new measurements and new analyses changed the odds on what could be expected in this century in the "no policy" scenarios - that is, where there are no policies in place that specifically induce reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Overall, the changes "unfortunately largely summed up all in the same direction," he says. "Overall, they stacked up so they caused more projected global warming."

While the outcomes in the "no policy" projections now look much worse than before, there is less change from previous work in the projected outcomes if strong policies are put in place now to drastically curb greenhouse gas emissions. Without action, "there is significantly more risk than we previously estimated," Prinn says. "This increases the urgency for significant policy action."

To illustrate the range of probabilities revealed by the 400 simulations, Prinn and the team produced a "roulette wheel" that reflects the latest relative odds of various levels of temperature rise. The wheel provides a very graphic representation of just how serious the potential climate impacts are.

"There's no way the world can or should take these risks," Prinn says. And the odds indicated by this modeling may actually understate the problem, because the model does not fully incorporate other positive feedbacks that can occur, for example, if increased temperatures caused a large-scale melting of permafrost in arctic regions and subsequent release of large quantities of methane, a very potent greenhouse gas. Including that feedback "is just going to make it worse," Prinn says.

The lead author of the paper describing the new projections is Andrei Sokolov, research scientist in the Joint Program. Other authors, besides Sokolov and Prinn, include Peter H. Stone, Chris E. Forest, Sergey Paltsev, Adam Schlosser, Stephanie Dutkiewicz, John Reilly, Marcus Sarofim, Chien Wang and Henry D. Jacoby, all of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, as well as Mort Webster of MIT's Engineering Systems Division and D. Kicklighter, B. Felzer and J. Melillo of the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole.

Prinn stresses that the computer models are built to match the known conditions, processes and past history of the relevant human and natural systems, and the researchers are therefore dependent on the accuracy of this current knowledge. Beyond this, "we do the research, and let the results fall where they may," he says. Since there are so many uncertainties, especially with regard to what human beings will choose to do and how large the climate response will be, "we don't pretend we can do it accurately. Instead, we do these 400 runs and look at the spread of the odds."

Because vehicles last for years, and buildings and powerplants last for decades, it is essential to start making major changes through adoption of significant national and international policies as soon as possible, Prinn says. "The least-cost option to lower the risk is to start now and steadily transform the global energy system over the coming decades to low or zero greenhouse gas-emitting technologies."

This work was supported in part by grants from the Office of Science of the U.S. Dept. of Energy, and by the industrial and foundation sponsors of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.


A version of this article appeared in MIT Tech Talk on May 20, 2009 (download PDF).

http://http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

JimN
05-23-2009, 09:38 AM
I'd like that MIT study more if a government department wasn't involved and it was completely independent. We all know they (US government) have an agenda and this falls in line with that.

Jorski
05-23-2009, 02:58 PM
Right...funny how you guys never think that the Bush government had an opposite agenda where climate change is concerned.

Ric
05-23-2009, 04:37 PM
Right...funny how you guys never think that the Bush government had an opposite agenda where climate change is concerned.
hahahhaha didn't you all know that the bush administration existed to trash the environment? :rotf: The canadians knew it all along. We were duped!
The current administration has been in power since the hurricane really and their meddling is just now beginning to show the economic domino effects that practical people already knew..

Jorski
05-23-2009, 04:47 PM
hahahhaha didn't you all know that the bush administration existed to trash the environment? :rotf

Nope...let's just say that they were all ears when the oil and coal lobby groups came calling.

JimN
05-23-2009, 09:41 PM
Right...funny how you guys never think that the Bush government had an opposite agenda where climate change is concerned.

I never said which admin has the agenda- they all do and they're seldom truly in the best interest of the people. Both are in it to make a ton of money, just in different ways.

So, drilling in North America is a worse way to get oil than being dependent on the Middle East? If it's here, it should be used, IMO. That way, they have a harder time trying to extort others. You seem to think we're all in total agreement with whatever Republican admin is in place but not all of us are sheep. Everyone has a duty to be at least a little skeptical of any government that's in place because they seldom run for office for completely altruistic reasons. The lure of huge sums of money and influence is just too much like a floodlight to a group of moths. The people who heard Obama telling them that he would bring change stopped listening after the word 'change' and have no idea what he's really bringing because they only concerned themselves with what he could give them. Ask anyone who already thinks they're entitled to various sources of free money if they want more and I seriously doubt that you'll hear a single "No".

CantRepeat
05-24-2009, 06:48 AM
take the money away from the politicians and see who stays....
LINK--------> House and Senate Salaries (http://www.thecapitol.net/FAQ/payandperqs.htm)

It's really strange when the people that give the raise are the people themselves.

Congress has the power to vote on their own paycheck and give themselves a raise at any point.

JimN
05-24-2009, 10:12 AM
It's really strange when the people that give the raise are the people themselves.

Congress has the power to vote on their own paycheck and give themselves a raise at any point.

It's not how much they make in office. Compared with athletes, actors and CEOs, members of Congress make very little but when they make policies regarding industries that their families, friends and former/future collegues can invest in or own, they stand to make huge profits. They spend our money on things we never even know about because they slip their pet projects into bills that are so unrelated that it doesn't make sense to look for the pork there. Instead of operating like a business, where profit and loss are watched and competition keeps prices in check, they just increase taxes when they should be cutting costs, eliminating bad employees and spending insane amounts of money.

The college students who caused all of the problems in the '60s are in charge now and they're doing it again but they now have ways to make bigger changes, on everyone elses' dime.

Does this look familiar? It's from 1934.

Jorski
05-24-2009, 02:00 PM
I never said which admin has the agenda- they all do and they're seldom truly in the best interest of the people. Both are in it to make a ton of money, just in different ways.


Actually, you did; you did it by suggesting that the MIT study was tainted because they received government funding, and that because of that it appears that you think that they somehow fit their data to support some government agenda.

The thing is, just who funds science? It happens to be governement (directly or indirectly) because there is not an immediate pay-off to those who undertake raw science. Do you honestly think science related to climate change is best funded by the coal and oil industries? You say that you want an independantly funded study; so just who is independant ?

To me, educational institutions an government science agencies are the most (I didn't say perfect) source for his kind of research. That said, it is a matter of degree. It would seem to me that Harvard, or a National Academy of Sience, is a better place to start your search for scientific information than the Cato Institute (for instance).


So, drilling in North America is a worse way to get oil than being dependent on the Middle East? If it's here, it should be used, IMO. That way, they have a harder time trying to extort others.

Never commented on that, but since you asked...the problem is the burning of fossil fuels wherever they come from. Drill baby drill is a massive distraction from the problem at hand. Even if you prefer to source your own oil for political expediency, don't you think that such a policy should at least be based on the degree to which a realistic impact could be made upon the situation?;)

JimN
05-24-2009, 02:15 PM
Actually, you did; you did it by suggesting that the MIT study was tainted because they received government funding, and that because of that it appears that you think that they somehow fit their data to support some government agenda.

The thing is, just who funds science? It happens to be governement (directly or indirectly) because there is not an immediate pay-off to those who undertake raw science. Do you honestly think science related to climate change is best funded by the coal and oil industries? You say that you want an independantly funded study; so just who is independant ?

To me, educational institutions an government science agencies are the most (I didn't say perfect) source for his kind of research. That said, it is a matter of degree.

Never commented on that, but since you asked...the problem is the burning of fossil fuels wherever they come from. Drill baby drill is a massive distraction from the problem at hand. Even if you prefer to source your own oil for political expediency, don't you think that such a policy should at least be based on the degree to which a realistic impact could be made upon the situation?;)

No, I didn't. Your MIT study reference didn't show when the data collection occurred (specifically) or exactly where the funding came from.

One admin will fund what they want and the next will obviously fund something else when they're of different slant. The chance of the Democrats and Republicans funding research in lock-step is nil (according to an informal poll I took last week).:D

"It would seem to me that Harvard, or a National Academy of Science, is a better place to start your search for scientific information than the Cato Institute (for instance)."

Maybe, but I have never heard that Harvard was particularly neutral, politically.

As large as China and India are, I think that if they want other countries to send work their way, they should clean up their own environmental messes.

TX.X-30 fan
05-24-2009, 04:41 PM
Nope...let's just say that they were all ears when the oil and coal lobby groups came calling.




That is a totally ridiculous statement and unsupportable with fact it derives from a media built false image crated to undermine the previous administration.

Fact is we are the Saudi Arabia of coal on the planet as well as sitting on vast untapped natural gas reserves. We do not need to go back to the horse and buggy only utilize the resources we have right here in north America. The current clueless egg heads in the new regime are going to ruin this nation by sending us down an expensive path to green energy initiatives that will fail. Just look at the most recent liberal failure...........can you say ethanol.


I find it amusing that you think these universities have the most agenda free science, that again in an extremely naive opinion since 95% of colleges are far left leaning institutions by any measure.


i do believe in global climate change and I believe it has been occurring for millions of years. It happened before we walked the planet and it will continue after we are gone. How arrogant and immature to imagine we are anything more than a blip on the radar in the grand scheme of things.


C02 is my friend. :D

Jorski
05-24-2009, 08:50 PM
How arrogant and immature to imagine we are anything more than a blip on the radar in the grand scheme of things.

Well if you're thinking in thousands of years...yes. If you are thinking in terms of your grandchildren...sadly, no.

I think it is the ultimate arrogance that we as a human race think we can do anything that we want without affecting our environment.

As for the US being the "Saudi Arabia of coal"; there isn't a dirtier fuel, in terms of carbon or pollutants, on the planet. Oh and please don't bring up the laughable notion of "clean coal" - there is no such thing. Not now, nor in the foreseeable future.

Finally, you said:

That is a totally ridiculous statement and unsupportable with fact it derives from a media built false image crated to undermine the previous administration.

Please...http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Lobby


In the 2006 election cycle, oil and gas companies alone contributed over $19 million to political campaigns. 82% of that money went to Republican candidates, while the remaining 18% went to Democrats. In 2004, oil and gas companies contributed over $25 million to political campaign, donating 80% of that money to Republicans. In the 2000 elections, over $34 million was contributed, with 78% of that money going to Republicans. Electric utilities also heavily favor Republicans; their contributions have recently ranged between $15-20 million.[3][4] From 2003-2006, the Energy Lobby also contributed $58.3 million to state level campaigns. By comparison, alternative energy interests contributed around half a million dollars in the same time period. [5]

Maristar210
05-24-2009, 10:22 PM
My flexfuel SUV can no longer run on ethanol so the money I sent on a green vehicle is now gone and the residual value shows so. Another liberal example of FAIL

alletric
05-24-2009, 10:31 PM
My flexfuel SUV can no longer run on ethanol so the money I sent on a green vehicle is now gone and the residual value shows so. Another liberal example of FAIL


Kinda funny that there is a sign at my local marina that says we garuntee 100% ethanol free! We love your boat too much. Apparently it destroys metal when it comes in contact with it and moister. Great combination in an engine.

Ric
05-26-2009, 10:36 AM
Wikipedia? Wikipedia??

Can you wikipedia a report on contributions for the Big Green lobby? hahahahhahahahahahahhahaahahahahhhahahahahhah





Well if you're thinking in thousands of years...yes. If you are thinking in terms of your grandchildren...sadly, no.

I think it is the ultimate arrogance that we as a human race think we can do anything that we want without affecting our environment.

As for the US being the "Saudi Arabia of coal"; there isn't a dirtier fuel, in terms of carbon or pollutants, on the planet. Oh and please don't bring up the laughable notion of "clean coal" - there is no such thing. Not now, nor in the foreseeable future.

Finally, you said:



Please...http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Lobby


In the 2006 election cycle, oil and gas companies alone contributed over $19 million to political campaigns. 82% of that money went to Republican candidates, while the remaining 18% went to Democrats. In 2004, oil and gas companies contributed over $25 million to political campaign, donating 80% of that money to Republicans. In the 2000 elections, over $34 million was contributed, with 78% of that money going to Republicans. Electric utilities also heavily favor Republicans; their contributions have recently ranged between $15-20 million.[3][4] From 2003-2006, the Energy Lobby also contributed $58.3 million to state level campaigns. By comparison, alternative energy interests contributed around half a million dollars in the same time period. [5]

panshovel68
05-26-2009, 10:43 AM
Wind turbines kill birds.

Not so much! There was a study done at one of the wind farms we put up, the biologist were there night and day for three weeks and found one dead bat. Coal power plants kill about everything! Get your facts straight.8p

captain planet
05-26-2009, 10:54 AM
Lets go green without legislation. You want to lesson the dependence on foreign oil, drill at home but to think we will ever have alternative source of energy is a pipe dream.

That's only because the mega rich oil companies have it drilled into all our heads that we can't have alternatives through propoganda.

To paraphrase the comedian Lewis Black, "i-pod has figured out how to put thousands of songs on a credit card....and we can't figure out solar energy??? 'Well, the sun sets every day and we don't know where it goes'"

:rolleyes:

Jorski
05-26-2009, 02:05 PM
Wikipedia? Wikipedia??


Chose whatever source that you wish:


http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&q=Oil%20and%20gas%20lobby%2C%20money%20spent%2C%20 report&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn

captain planet
05-26-2009, 02:35 PM
That is a totally ridiculous statement and unsupportable with fact it derives from a media built false image crated to undermine the previous administration.

Fact is we are the Saudi Arabia of coal on the planet as well as sitting on vast untapped natural gas reserves. We do not need to go back to the horse and buggy only utilize the resources we have right here in north America. The current clueless egg heads in the new regime are going to ruin this nation by sending us down an expensive path to green energy initiatives that will fail. Just look at the most recent liberal failure...........can you say ethanol.

I find it amusing that you think these universities have the most agenda free science, that again in an extremely naive opinion since 95% of colleges are far left leaning institutions by any measure.


i do believe in global climate change and I believe it has been occurring for millions of years. It happened before we walked the planet and it will continue after we are gone. How arrogant and immature to imagine we are anything more than a blip on the radar in the grand scheme of things.


C02 is my friend. :D

I would beg to differ on that TX. Ethanol is not a liberal failure, but rather a good job by the corn growers lobbiests. Ethanol in it's current form is ridiculous IMO, however if we get cellulosic (sp?) ethanol figured out, we will have the infrastructure in place to produce this fuel which has much promise.

TX.X-30 fan
05-26-2009, 02:59 PM
So we need to wearout our soil for car fuel?? Seems foolish but as Jorki points out we have no time to waste.

Monte
05-26-2009, 03:01 PM
I would beg to differ on that TX. Ethanol is not a liberal failure, but rather a good job by the corn growers lobbiests. Ethanol in it's current form is ridiculous IMO, however if we get cellulosic (sp?) ethanol figured out, we will have the infrastructure in place to produce this fuel which has much promise.

It does make for a fine sippin whiskey though:rolleyes: You know... without the kill you additives:rolleyes:

TX.X-30 fan
05-26-2009, 03:04 PM
Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | T | The Washington Times

Democrats push ethanol growth; Bills promote alternative energy, 'flex-fuel' vehicles.
Publication: The Washington Times
Publication Date: 12-MAY-06 Format: Online
Delivery: Immediate Online Access
Full Article Title: Democrats push ethanol growth; Bills promote alternative energy, 'flex-fuel' vehicles.(NATION)

Article Excerpt
Byline: Christina Bellantoni, THE WASHINGTON TIMES

House Democrats said yesterday that the answer to the fuel crisis is growing in the fields of rural America, and they introduced bills to expand production of ethanol.

"We can grow new energy here at home from American farms to American families," said Rep. Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota Democrat.

Democrats on the Rural Working Group introduced bills that call for doubling the percentage of renewable fuels, such as ethanol, sold in the U.S. by 2012 and increasing the percentage of so-called "flex-fuel" cars capable of running partly on ethanol.

The legislation would require that 75 percent of all U.S. cars be flex-fuel models by 2013. Flex-fuel cars would cost the same as regular cars, the Democrats said.

The bills also extend the tax credits for ethanol and biodiesel production through 2015 and increase tax benefits to small ethanol producers. The legislation also boosts incentives for increasing the number of stations that pump ethanol and biodiesel and calls for greater investment in biofuel research.

The goal is to achieve energy independence within a decade and to "send our energy dollars to the Midwest, not the Middle East," supporters said.

"The answer is right here at home," said Tom Buis, president of the National Farmers Union. "Biofuels is not a dream, it's reality."

panshovel68
05-26-2009, 03:07 PM
My flexfuel SUV can no longer run on ethanol so the money I sent on a green vehicle is now gone and the residual value shows so. Another liberal example of FAIL

Mabye you shoulda looked into a hybrid. And ethanol is not really green. Just my two cents

Furthermore my GMC flexfuel motor cost $600 more and I got a $650 tax credit. But I never considered it a "green" truck, it just burns some corn instead.

Monte
05-26-2009, 03:10 PM
Mabye you shoulda looked into a hybrid. And ethanol is not really green. Just my two cents

Aren't there HUGE environmental issues with the batteries used in Hybrids? Something about disposal. ICBW, but I do remember hearing something about this issue in the prius..

TX.X-30 fan
05-26-2009, 03:12 PM
Please Note: This is the old home of MichNews.com. Please click here to visit the new MichNews.com Website. Thank you for your support!

Alan Caruba

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

Democrat Deceptions about Oil
By Alan Caruba
MichNews.com
Sep 8, 2008




Lost amidst the many speeches delivered at the Democrat Convention was one by Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada. He is the Senate Majority Leader and, as such, controls the legislative agenda in that upper house of Congress. Harry Reid hates oil, but then, so does the Democrat Party.

The reason this nation is held hostage to other oil producing nations is that the Democrats, going back to President Jimmy Carter, have waged war on the American oil industry. This is especially important insofar as nations ruled by monarchies, corrupt, and communist governments, control 75% of the world’s oil.

Seldon B. Graham, Jr., the author of “Why Your Gasoline Prices Are High”, a petroleum engineer and attorney, recently noted that “It is no secret that Democrats are for renewable energy and are against U.S. oil and drilling for U.S. oil. But, Democrats conceal the fact that they have held this position for three decades. Democrats are not about to change their thirty year-old energy agenda.”

“Thirty years ago, Democrats selected ethanol as their renewable energy of choice. Their ethanol agenda has proven to be a total disaster. But, it is a well hidden disaster. Democrats continue to push ethanol as the renewable biofuel which will eliminate our dependence on foreign oil and our necessity to drill for US oil. It is surprising that Democrats have been able to fool so many Americans about ethanol for so long.”

Not only has the Democrat Party left us vulnerable to other oil producing nations, but its ethanol agenda has created vast imbalances in the world’s food supplies as corn is diverted from domestic use and as a factor in our agricultural exports.

If you had heard Sen. Reid, a man who has said, “Oil makes us sick. Coal makes us sick. Global warming makes us sick,” you would have heard him attack oil as the reason for all the woes of the world. “President Carter warned us about it in the 1970s when he proposed real solutions—conservation, fuel efficiency, and alternative fuels—to what he correctly named the ‘moral equivalent of war.’” President Carter, whose weak response to the taking of U.S. diplomats hostage by the Iranian Revolution led to the election of Ronald Reagan, was wrong then and he is wrong now.

So-called “clean energy”, wind and solar, provides barely one percent of the nation’s need for electrical power. It does so only because of the massive subsidies, like those for ethanol, the federal government provides, but Harry Reid could not resist characterizing the Bush administration as rife with “oil industry cronies.”

He made no reference, however, to the Democrat’s agriculture cronies. As Graham points out, “Democrats gave ethanol a 40¢ per gallon government subsidy in 1978. In 1980, Democrats gave insured loans to build ethanol plants.”

“Currently, the government subsidy is 51¢ per gallon through 2010. Last year, the government subsidy payout for ethanol was $3.3 Billion. The government subsidy will increase to $18.4 Billion in 2022. Ethanol is causing severe economic harm to the American economy, not even considering the increase in the cost of all food products made from corn.”

This is occurring as Americans struggle to find the money to fill their gas tanks and many worry about the price of oil to heat their homes this winter.

Sen. Reid praised the Democrat candidate for President, Barack Obama, saying, “He articulates a vision of energy independence that is comprehensive and based on sound science and sound policies…” This is a lie. No nation on Earth can be or is energy independent. Even Iran has to import gasoline because it lacks the refining capacity to provide it despite its own vast oil reserves.

America, too, needs more refineries, but the threat of “windfall profits” taxes has kept our oil industry from making the vast, billion-dollar investments necessary to build them and a matrix of environmental regulations has made it even more costly and difficult.

The Democrats and their choice for the next President have resisted permitting our own oil companies to drill for millions of barrels of known oil reserves in Alaska’s ANWR and have resisted lifting restrictions on exploration and extraction of oil on 85% of our nation’s continental shelf.

Instead Sen. Reid called for more wind power, geothermal, and solar power generation. He called for “smarter vehicles, more efficient and accessible mass transit, energy-efficient building codes…” These are the illusions the Democrats offer in contrast to realistic, pragmatic and vitally needed responses to our need for increased oil and natural gas production.

The Democrats offer the lie that such production would not impact the current price of oil or our needs for “ten years.” The mere mention of off-shore production caused the price of oil to drop when offered by Sen. McCain. The end of the ethanol debacle would lower the price of gas at the pump. Drill now. Drill here. That’s the answer.
---------------------------------
Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center, www.anxietycenter.com. He blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com.

© Alan Caruba, September 2008

TX.X-30 fan
05-26-2009, 03:15 PM
Feel free to follow the Dem's down this ridiculous path back to the horse and buggy, I choose common sense.

panshovel68
05-26-2009, 03:24 PM
Aren't there HUGE environmental issues with the batteries used in Hybrids? Something about disposal. ICBW, but I do remember hearing something about this issue in the prius..

Batteries are recycleable, atleast the lead is.

captain planet
05-26-2009, 03:53 PM
Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | T | The Washington Times

Democrats push ethanol growth; Bills promote alternative energy, 'flex-fuel' vehicles.
Publication: The Washington Times
Publication Date: 12-MAY-06 Format: Online
Delivery: Immediate Online Access
Full Article Title: Democrats push ethanol growth; Bills promote alternative energy, 'flex-fuel' vehicles.(NATION)

Article Excerpt
Byline: Christina Bellantoni, THE WASHINGTON TIMES

House Democrats said yesterday that the answer to the fuel crisis is growing in the fields of rural America, and they introduced bills to expand production of ethanol.

"We can grow new energy here at home from American farms to American families," said Rep. Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota Democrat.

Democrats on the Rural Working Group introduced bills that call for doubling the percentage of renewable fuels, such as ethanol, sold in the U.S. by 2012 and increasing the percentage of so-called "flex-fuel" cars capable of running partly on ethanol.

The legislation would require that 75 percent of all U.S. cars be flex-fuel models by 2013. Flex-fuel cars would cost the same as regular cars, the Democrats said.

The bills also extend the tax credits for ethanol and biodiesel production through 2015 and increase tax benefits to small ethanol producers. The legislation also boosts incentives for increasing the number of stations that pump ethanol and biodiesel and calls for greater investment in biofuel research.

The goal is to achieve energy independence within a decade and to "send our energy dollars to the Midwest, not the Middle East," supporters said.

"The answer is right here at home," said Tom Buis, president of the National Farmers Union. "Biofuels is not a dream, it's reality."

Like I said, lobbiests at work. These lobbiests just happen to target Democrats as opposed to the oil guys targeting/infiltrating the republicans.

Thanks for proving my argument TX. :rolleyes:

captain planet
05-26-2009, 03:56 PM
Batteries are recycleable, atleast the lead is.

Do we have any limestone in this country to neutralize all that acid??? :rolleyes:

VW Diesel Jetta is a good alternative to the Prius.....for those of you who are afraid of labels. (TX) ;) Plus you an get manual transmission.

TX.X-30 fan
05-26-2009, 04:18 PM
Like I said, lobbiests at work. These lobbiests just happen to target Democrats as opposed to the oil guys targeting/infiltrating the republicans.

Thanks for proving my argument TX. :rolleyes:




It was pushed by the democrats is all I originally said which was and is correct. :D

bcampbe7
05-26-2009, 04:22 PM
Are we warming or cooling today?

Jorski
05-26-2009, 04:23 PM
Hmmm...so if we had followed Carter's plan 30 years ago regarding oil/energy independence would we all have been better or worse off ??;)

It wasn't perfect; however; it was an early recognition of the problems at hand. Then time was an ally, now it is a problem.

http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/%20detail/3398

TX.X-30 fan
05-26-2009, 04:30 PM
Carter was and is a complete idiot and was the worst Pres of all time.

TX.X-30 fan
05-26-2009, 04:31 PM
Are we warming or cooling today?




Some like Chillin. :rolleyes:

bcampbe7
05-26-2009, 04:35 PM
Surely we are cooler (climate wise) today than we were in the late 1990's, right?

panshovel68
05-26-2009, 04:38 PM
Do we have any limestone in this country to neutralize all that acid??? :rolleyes:

VW Diesel Jetta is a good alternative to the Prius.....for those of you who are afraid of labels. (TX) ;) Plus you an get manual transmission.

And the plastic shell is recycleable also. So is it safe to say batteries are not such a environmental concern?

captain planet
05-26-2009, 04:43 PM
And the plastic shell is recycleable also. So is it safe to say batteries are not such a environmental concern?

As long as it is a #1 or #2 plastic, you can recycle it in Ohio! 8p

TX.X-30 fan
05-26-2009, 04:44 PM
And the plastic shell is recycleable also. So is it safe to say batteries are not such a environmental concern?

It has been stated that production shipping and recycling them all uses more energy globally than they can save in their projected lives. :confused:



Lets make gas from food and we can go back to these days.. :D

captain planet
05-26-2009, 04:44 PM
Carter was and is a complete idiot and was the worst Pres of all time.

However still had the vision 30+ years ago to see an energy problem that we now face. :rolleyes:

captain planet
05-26-2009, 04:46 PM
It has been stated that production shipping and recycling them all uses more energy globally than they can save in their projected lives. :confused:



Lets make gas from food and we can go back to these days.. :D

I would love to see from where you got this information.

TX.X-30 fan
05-26-2009, 04:47 PM
We do a great job of collecting, sorting, bundling recyclables.......... then taking them to the landfill anyway. :D

TX.X-30 fan
05-26-2009, 04:51 PM
I would love to see from where you got this information.




lookie its from a college it must be right. :D:D


You will like this one CP, no thanks necessary I am here to serve. 8p

TMCNo1
05-26-2009, 04:53 PM
We do a great job of collecting, sorting, bundling recyclables.......... then taking them to the landfill anyway. :D

That's the way it is around here, you pay taxes, the city pays with your tax money for the recyclable truck to come around and pick the stuff up and then they can't sell the stuff, cause nobody want to buy it.

captain planet
05-26-2009, 04:56 PM
lookie its from a college it must be right. :D:D


You will like this one CP, no thanks necessary I am here to serve. 8p

Lookie.............at what? :confused:

TX.X-30 fan
05-26-2009, 05:00 PM
Lookie.............at what? :confused:

:D:D Ooops.


http://clubs.ccsu.edu/Recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188

TX.X-30 fan
05-26-2009, 05:04 PM
That's the way it is around here, you pay taxes, the city pays with your tax money for the recyclable truck to come around and pick the stuff up and then they can't sell the stuff, cause nobody want to buy it.

On top of that we pay to have it hauled to San Antonio so they can "recycle it" to their dump. :rolleyes:

panshovel68
05-26-2009, 05:12 PM
On top of that we pay to have it hauled to San Antonio so they can "recycle it" to their dump. :rolleyes:

Your right !#ck the environment, no need to worry about pollution, and lets get back to the 4.59/gal gasoline.

TX.X-30 fan
05-26-2009, 05:40 PM
Your right !#ck the environment, no need to worry about pollution, and lets get back to the 4.59/gal gasoline.



That is exactly what our fearless leader wants. It came from his lips in the campaign. He wants it like Europe and it has nothing to do with the planet its all about funding his socialism.

captain planet
05-26-2009, 05:52 PM
:D:D Ooops.


http://clubs.ccsu.edu/Recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188

I'll take that article for what it is worth. Some interesting facts there. I have a couple of problems though. First, I'm sure that Toyota is not the only customer for that mine in Ontario. So you can't blame Toyota for the environmental mess up there, you can blame the poorly run facility. There are ways to run a mine in an environmentally friendly fashion (I know that is kind of an oxymoron statement).

Second, you are going to tell me for a minute that you think a hummer will last 3 times as long as a Prius, or ANY Toyota for that matter? Seriously? Uh, I used to be a huge proponent of American made cars, but the writing is on the wall. Toyota and Honda have been kicking our butts for years.

captain planet
05-26-2009, 05:53 PM
That is exactly what our fearless leader wants. It came from his lips in the campaign. He wants it like Europe and it has nothing to do with the planet its all about funding his socialism.

I hate to keep asking you for proof, but let's see it.

panshovel68
05-26-2009, 06:01 PM
That is exactly what our fearless leader wants. It came from his lips in the campaign. He wants it like Europe and it has nothing to do with the planet its all about funding his socialism.

Yes he was ELECTED. The people have spoken8p

TX.X-30 fan
05-26-2009, 06:37 PM
I'll take that article for what it is worth. Some interesting facts there. I have a couple of problems though. First, I'm sure that Toyota is not the only customer for that mine in Ontario. So you can't blame Toyota for the environmental mess up there, you can blame the poorly run facility. There are ways to run a mine in an environmentally friendly fashion (I know that is kind of an oxymoron statement).

Second, you are going to tell me for a minute that you think a hummer will last 3 times as long as a Prius, or ANY Toyota for that matter? Seriously? Uh, I used to be a huge proponent of American made cars, but the writing is on the wall. Toyota and Honda have been kicking our butts for years.




I never said the stuff I read about the batteries was gospel, I just stated there was information out. I am not an expert on the prius I believe they were talking about lasting longer than the batteries.

I believe the point was to say their are environmental consequences with all this so called green stuff too, just my take anyway.

TX.X-30 fan
05-26-2009, 06:43 PM
I hate to keep asking you for proof, but let's see it.




May take a few I'll look it was in a interview during the campaign, he was asked if he would be comfortable with gas prices at different levels and I believe the 6.5 range he said was fine as long as it rose slow so as not to burden folks.

I will look for the exact context though.

JimN
05-26-2009, 08:53 PM
Mabye you shoulda looked into a hybrid. And ethanol is not really green. Just my two cents

Furthermore my GMC flexfuel motor cost $600 more and I got a $650 tax credit. But I never considered it a "green" truck, it just burns some corn instead.

Ethanol would be great if it didn't cost more to produce than to sell. If we would use switch grass, like Brazil, we would be farther ahead, IMO. I wonder how many people who have been driving, but don't really need gas guzzlers, are in favor of better fuel economy in those kinds of vehicles.

André
05-26-2009, 09:28 PM
threadjack!!!8p

Happy birthday Jorski!!!:)

JimN
05-26-2009, 09:32 PM
Oh, sure- leave it to the Canucks to be nice to each other!

Happy Birthday, Jorski.

Jorski
05-27-2009, 12:04 AM
Thanks Andre.

Thanks Jimn..you know that we Canucks have to stick together !8p

captain planet
05-27-2009, 10:49 AM
I never said the stuff I read about the batteries was gospel, I just stated there was information out. I am not an expert on the prius I believe they were talking about lasting longer than the batteries.

I believe the point was to say their are environmental consequences with all this so called green stuff too, just my take anyway.

Oddly enough there is a Prius forum, much like this one. I went there to see what folks were saying about the batteries and how long they last. Apparently getting 150K+ is typical battery life. I had read about some problems with the earlier generation Prius about driving slow for a long time (like in a state park) where the batteries were doing all the work and not being recharged and killing the batteries. Since about 2002 or so, the computer in the car keeps the batteries in a constant state of about 60% to 80% charge for optimum life. Pretty smart.

So where is the Chevy Volt??

JimN
05-27-2009, 12:03 PM
Since we're dealing with environmental issues, I just wanted to say that when I went to the Milwaukee dump yesterday, they told me that I should just put the old TV in one of the bins, just like the lumber I was getting rid of. Apparently, along with increasing the number of useless employees to about triple what they had, they now don't recycle TVs, they just send them to the landfill. All of the noise I heard and read about the materials in TVs that are hazardous and recyclable are now going to take up space and this kind of thing is going to get a pass? ***?????????

Jorski
05-27-2009, 01:07 PM
^^^ well, it wouldn't get a pass from me;) . We have to do better on so many fronts.

JimN
05-27-2009, 01:14 PM
^^^ well, it wouldn't get a pass from me;) . We have to do better on so many fronts.

I'm not happy about this- we have more landfills than I think we need here and they're not getting any smaller. Sure, they collect methane from them but all of the materials that should be recycled and aren't- especially heavy metals, picture tubes with phosphorus and chemicals that are put with the household trash that leach into the aquifers will have an affect not only for a long time but from a long distance.

I didn't leave it.

Maristar210
05-27-2009, 01:16 PM
Since we're dealing with environmental issues, I just wanted to say that when I went to the Milwaukee dump yesterday, they told me that I should just put the old TV in one of the bins, just like the lumber I was getting rid of. Apparently, along with increasing the number of useless employees to about triple what they had, they now don't recycle TVs, they just send them to the landfill. All of the noise I heard and read about the materials in TVs that are hazardous and recyclable are now going to take up space and this kind of thing is going to get a pass? ***?????????

JimN

I tried to recycle my old 35 inch Sony. Fill this form out and write in the information then call and make an appointment at the recyling center which is 20 miles from my house and only open M-F 9-4. I was going to recycle it but it would have cost an additional 5 gallons of fossil fuel to get there and back so I threw it in the dumpster at work and bought beer with the gas money instead.


Hey Jorski !!!! send me some Molson Brador and make it snappy:D

Jesus_Freak
05-27-2009, 01:33 PM
...I think it is the ultimate arrogance that we as a human race think we can do anything that we want without affecting our environment....

Since we are simply thinking out loud...I "think" it is the ultimate arrogance to conclude that we can affect the temporal energy balance of our solar system, whose only net energy source is an unpredictable/unrepeatable nuclear reactor and whose only net energy sink is the blackness of space itself.

The MIT study is certainly entertaining. A "roulette wheel" is used to look at the results of chaotic perturbations, akin to a non-linear stability analysis. Actually, this is not research, but is more like what my middle schooler can get by typing the formula "=randbetween(0,1000) in an Excel worksheet. :D JK...sort of.

6ballsisall
05-27-2009, 01:35 PM
Since we are simply thinking out loud...I "think" it is the ultimate arrogance to conclude that we can affect the temporal energy balance of our solar system, whose only net energy source is an unpredictable/unrepeatable nuclear reactor and whose only net energy sink is the blackness of space itself.

The MIT study is certainly entertaining. A "roulette wheel" is used to look at the results of chaotic perturbations, akin to a non-linear stability analysis. Actually, this is not research, but is more like what my middle schooler can get by typing the formula "=randbetween(0,1000) in an Excel worksheet. :D JK...sort of.

My head is spinning just reading that JF. I best go back to threads on Impeller removal and what oil should I use. You fellas are much to edjumacated for me. :D

JimN
05-27-2009, 02:04 PM
Actually, this is not research, but is more like what my middle schooler can get by typing the formula "=randbetween(0,1000) in an Excel worksheet. :D JK...sort of.

Thanks a lot! You just made me feel really old! PCs didn't exist when I was in middle school and they didn't teach us math that was as advanced as your little Excel formula (which didn't work for the numbers i entered, BTW).

Thanks, I needed that.

OTOH, 7th grade is when I learned the Metric System, so it wasn't a waste.

captain planet
05-27-2009, 02:07 PM
:rolleyes:Since we are simply thinking out loud...I "think" it is the ultimate arrogance to conclude that we can affect the temporal energy balance of our solar system, whose only net energy source is an unpredictable/unrepeatable nuclear reactor and whose only net energy sink is the blackness of space itself.

The MIT study is certainly entertaining. A "roulette wheel" is used to look at the results of chaotic perturbations, akin to a non-linear stability analysis. Actually, this is not research, but is more like what my middle schooler can get by typing the formula "=randbetween(0,1000) in an Excel worksheet. :D JK...sort of.

While we are thinking out loud...I think it is foolish to think that we can dig/pump up billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of tons of carbon laden materials (oil/coal/natural gas), burn them, dump the pollutants into the air, and not effect the air we breath and the atmosphere we live in. It's like saying that you can go into the kidde pool, drink the water, and not have the urine and feces from all the baby diapers not eventually make you sick. I mean, there are just a couple babies in there, and they are soo small and insignificant how could they possibly effect the water?:rolleyes:

JimN
05-27-2009, 02:28 PM
:rolleyes:

While we are thinking out loud...I think it is foolish to think that we can dig/pump up billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of tons of carbon laden materials (oil/coal/natural gas), burn them, dump the pollutants into the air, and not effect the air we breath and the atmosphere we live in. It's like saying that you can go into the kidde pool, drink the water, and not have the urine and feces from all the baby diapers not eventually make you sick. I mean, there are just a couple babies in there, and they are soo small and insignificant how could they possibly effect the water?:rolleyes:

That's a different scenario. The waste remains in suspension longer than the carbon does in air. Particulates fall out and stay fairly close to the ground and while it doesn't mean that they're actually gone, they don't do as much as if they were dispersed in the atmosphere.

To be honest, I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks that they have the definitive answer as far as how much effect humans have. At most, we have been collecting data for 100 years, although the dark smudge that covered London and other places that burned soft coal in the 19th century were known to be the result. They come up with a formula that fits their hypothesis and make it known, become famous, do more research and later, someone comes along with "more accurate proof". Some, take the information others worked for and make a movie about it, win an Oscar and a Nobel Prize, become fairly invisible and become a footnote for not deserving what he won. Chaos is the main reason we can't be certain of the effects we have, the planet's systems are too large to be measured for a set of truly accurate samples and too many variables exist.

That said, "you don't crap where you eat" is still good advice. Also, "Drink upstream from the herd" is a good idea, too but with China and India belching so much into the air, we can't even do that anymore.

Jorski
05-27-2009, 03:04 PM
The waste remains in suspension longer than the carbon does in air.

Don't know about that...half life of carbon is 1000 years or so.


JF...they (MIT) did not conduct the research by spinning a roulette wheel. I suspect that you know that; or, at least I hope that you do.

Further, complex systems are often delicate, so why do you find it so surprising that we can affect how our climate functions?

captain planet
05-27-2009, 03:52 PM
That's a different scenario. The waste remains in suspension longer than the carbon does in air. Particulates fall out and stay fairly close to the ground and while it doesn't mean that they're actually gone, they don't do as much as if they were dispersed in the atmosphere.
To be honest, I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks that they have the definitive answer as far as how much effect humans have. At most, we have been collecting data for 100 years, although the dark smudge that covered London and other places that burned soft coal in the 19th century were known to be the result. They come up with a formula that fits their hypothesis and make it known, become famous, do more research and later, someone comes along with "more accurate proof". Some, take the information others worked for and make a movie about it, win an Oscar and a Nobel Prize, become fairly invisible and become a footnote for not deserving what he won. Chaos is the main reason we can't be certain of the effects we have, the planet's systems are too large to be measured for a set of truly accurate samples and too many variables exist.

That said, "you don't crap where you eat" is still good advice. Also, "Drink upstream from the herd" is a good idea, too but with China and India belching so much into the air, we can't even do that anymore.

Actually, urine does not stay suspended. It sinks as it has a specific gravity greater than 1.000. http://www.rnceus.com/ua/uasg.html Carbon dioxide sinks since it is a relatively heavy molecule (22) compared to O2 (16) or nitrogen (21). CO2 should stay relatively low in the atmosphere, you would think, concentrating it's warming effect near the ground.

We could go back and forth all day with this, my point was we are liberating this stuff at an extremely rapid rate relative to normal fluxuation in concentration in our atmosphere and to think it is not going to have some effect on our planet is naive. There is no reason not get off of fossil fuels as quickly as we can........except for those reasons that are drilled into our heads by the well funded propoganda machine run by the gas and oil giants.

As for China and India, whatever happened to being the beacon for the rest of the world to follow? Whatever happened to being the country leading the way to doing what is right? Do we not have any pride anymore? Are we just content to roll over because someone with deep pockets says it is the ONLY way to go?

JimN
05-27-2009, 05:00 PM
Don't know about that...half life of carbon is 1000 years or so.


JF...they (MIT) did not conduct the research by spinning a roulette wheel. I suspect that you know that; or, at least I hope that you do.

Further, complex systems are often delicate, so why do you find it so surprising that we can affect how our climate functions?

The half life of carbon has nothing to do with it. Anything that's suspended in a medium will eventually settle out if it's more dense than that medium. Constant turbulence will slow this but in periods of calm, it still settles out. In the case of airborne particulates, they can be scrubbed out by rain, trees, etc, so that's in addition to the normal depletion. Carbon on/in the ground isn't necessarily a bad thing either, especially if it's in the right form and other contaminants pass through that layer.

Complex systems may be delicate but if they actually modeled this process, they would need to estimate the relationship in size of their model to the whole environment, which would be ridiculously difficult, at best. There's no possibility of measuring the whole atmosphere's volume/temperature, chemical composition and density in one event and since discreet measurements are often used for climatology, it presents problems when credibility and accuracy are concerned.

How can an atmosphere that's as large as ours, be as sensitive as you seem to be alluding when there are so many systems in place that are working to keep it clean?

JimN
05-27-2009, 05:20 PM
Actually, urine does not stay suspended. It sinks as it has a specific gravity greater than 1.000. http://www.rnceus.com/ua/uasg.html Carbon dioxide sinks since it is a relatively heavy molecule (22) compared to O2 (16) or nitrogen (21). CO2 should stay relatively low in the atmosphere, you would think, concentrating it's warming effect near the ground.

We could go back and forth all day with this, my point was we are liberating this stuff at an extremely rapid rate relative to normal fluxuation in concentration in our atmosphere and to think it is not going to have some effect on our planet is naive. There is no reason not get off of fossil fuels as quickly as we can........except for those reasons that are drilled into our heads by the well funded propoganda machine run by the gas and oil giants.

As for China and India, whatever happened to being the beacon for the rest of the world to follow? Whatever happened to being the country leading the way to doing what is right? Do we not have any pride anymore? Are we just content to roll over because someone with deep pockets says it is the ONLY way to go?

Our government and a large number of people in this country won't allow us to be proud of our country. They also think everyone should have the same amount of whatever they want, not say things that may make someone else sad, and that what they do is OK but they should be able to tell everyone what to do. These people disgust me and I'm sick of what they have changed this country into. They're not all on one side of the political aisle, either, so don't bother telling me I don't like Democrats. I don't like most of their views, and the ones in our government should be put on a barge and floated out to sea but Greenpeace would probably sue us for pollution. Money has no conscience and doesn't care who wants it all, Republican or Democrat and both want as much as they can get but they just go about it in different ways.

China and India want to be the supplier to everyone but they don't want to clean up after themselves, which makes them turds, IMO. The US has helped almost EVERY country on the planet in one way or another and still, we get crapped on by France, Germany and some others when we try to lead the way. Let them take the reins for once and see how it feels to help others. Oh, sorry- I forgot about France being in Viet Nam before us and not being able to get the job done. Congress micro-managing and the media changing the hearts and minds of the US along with the 1960s anti war protesters, most of whom didn't have a clue as to what was really going on over there did their best to undermine the effort. One problem I have with many of the ones who caused problems in the '60s is that they're now in our government. War is always a bad thing but when the media go in and show our position, preparedness and the faces of our people fighting, it undermines the whole effort.

"There is no reason not get off of fossil fuels as quickly as we can."

Do you know of a good alternative that's available in sufficient quantity and won't pollute? Sunlight is great but the materials that make up the systems for exploiting the light can't pollute, either. Ethanol? Please. Propane and CNG are clean burning- why not use them more? They use propane inside factories for fork lifts and I don't see people keeling over from the fumes.

"As quickly as we can" is another way to say "Let's rush into something that we don't completely understand". Sound familiar?

JimN
05-27-2009, 05:36 PM
Actually, urine does not stay suspended. It sinks as it has a specific gravity greater than 1.000. http://www.rnceus.com/ua/uasg.html Carbon dioxide sinks since it is a relatively heavy molecule (22) compared to O2 (16) or nitrogen (21). CO2 should stay relatively low in the atmosphere, you would think, concentrating it's warming effect near the ground.

We could go back and forth all day with this, my point was we are liberating this stuff at an extremely rapid rate relative to normal fluxuation in concentration in our atmosphere and to think it is not going to have some effect on our planet is naive. There is no reason not get off of fossil fuels as quickly as we can........except for those reasons that are drilled into our heads by the well funded propoganda machine run by the gas and oil giants.

As for China and India, whatever happened to being the beacon for the rest of the world to follow? Whatever happened to being the country leading the way to doing what is right? Do we not have any pride anymore? Are we just content to roll over because someone with deep pockets says it is the ONLY way to go?

Our government and a large number of people in this country won't allow us to be proud of our country. They also think everyone should have the same amount of whatever they want, not say things that may make someone else sad, and that what they do is OK but they should be able to tell everyone what to do. These people disgust me and I'm sick of what they have changed this country into. They're not all on one side of the political aisle, either, so don't bother telling me I don't like Democrats. I don't like most of their views, and the ones in our government should be put on a barge and floated out to sea but Greenpeace would probably sue us for pollution. Money has no conscience and doesn't care who wants it all, Republican or Democrat and both want as much as they can get but they just go about it in different ways.

China and India want to be the supplier to everyone but they don't want to clean up after themselves, which makes them turds, IMO. The US has helped almost EVERY country on the planet in one way or another and still, we get crapped on by France, Germany and some others when we try to lead the way. Let them take the reins for once and see how it feels to help others. Oh, sorry- I forgot about France being in Viet Nam before us and not being able to get the job done. Congress micro-managing and the media changing the hearts and minds of the US along with the 1960s anti war protesters, most of whom didn't have a clue as to what was really going on over there did their best to undermine the effort. One problem I have with many of the ones who caused problems in the '60s is that they're now in our government. War is always a bad thing but when the media go in and show our position, preparedness and the faces of our people fighting, it undermines the whole effort.

"CO2 should stay relatively low in the atmosphere, you would think, concentrating it's warming effect near the ground."

How does this explain the glaciers receding on mountains? If our weather systems are usually around 60,000 and below, this leaves about 50 miles of really cold air above that altitude, which means the cold air volume in our atmosphere is far greater than the warm/hot air volume. This means the people who gnash and wail about climate change are only concerned for their survival, not that of the whole planet and all of its systems. Once we're all gone, the whole thing reboots and things go back to normal. What about volcanos? You want to put a filter over them? Mount St Helen, Mount Pinatubo, The ones in Mexico, Italy and Iceland have put far more carbon into the atmosphere than mankind ever has, and that's only since 1980. Kīlauea has been continuously active since 1983.

"There is no reason not get off of fossil fuels as quickly as we can."

Do you know of a good alternative that's available in sufficient quantity and won't pollute? Sunlight is great but the materials that make up the systems for exploiting the light can't pollute, either. Ethanol? Please. Propane and CNG are clean burning- why not use them more? They use propane inside factories for fork lifts and I don't see people keeling over from the fumes.

"As quickly as we can" is another way to say "Let's rush into something that we don't completely understand". Sound familiar?

captain planet
05-27-2009, 05:36 PM
Our government and a large number of people in this country won't allow us to be proud of our country. They also think everyone should have the same amount of whatever they want, not say things that may make someone else sad, and that what they do is OK but they should be able to tell everyone what to do. These people disgust me and I'm sick of what they have changed this country into. They're not all on one side of the political aisle, either, so don't bother telling me I don't like Democrats. I don't like most of their views, and the ones in our government should be put on a barge and floated out to sea but Greenpeace would probably sue us for pollution. Money has no conscience and doesn't care who wants it all, Republican or Democrat and both want as much as they can get but they just go about it in different ways.

China and India want to be the supplier to everyone but they don't want to clean up after themselves, which makes them turds, IMO. The US has helped almost EVERY country on the planet in one way or another and still, we get crapped on by France, Germany and some others when we try to lead the way. Let them take the reins for once and see how it feels to help others. Oh, sorry- I forgot about France being in Viet Nam before us and not being able to get the job done. Congress micro-managing and the media changing the hearts and minds of the US along with the 1960s anti war protesters, most of whom didn't have a clue as to what was really going on over there did their best to undermine the effort. One problem I have with many of the ones who caused problems in the '60s is that they're now in our government. War is always a bad thing but when the media go in and show our position, preparedness and the faces of our people fighting, it undermines the whole effort.

"There is no reason not get off of fossil fuels as quickly as we can."

Do you know of a good alternative that's available in sufficient quantity and won't pollute? Sunlight is great but the materials that make up the systems for exploiting the light can't pollute, either. Ethanol? Please. Propane and CNG are clean burning- why not use them more? They use propane inside factories for fork lifts and I don't see people keeling over from the fumes.

"As quickly as we can" is another way to say "Let's rush into something that we don't completely understand". Sound familiar?

We would have had electric cars a long time ago had the petroleum companies not come in and bought up the patent and the company developing longer lasting batteries. Ever see the movie, "Who Killed the Electric Car"? The people in general want to be green and be responsible, however big business is/has prevented that from happening because of greed. It's disgusting.

As for propane and natural gas, they give off CO2, and if leaked they are even a worse greenhouse gas themselves. We have the ability and the sunlight in this country to produce a whole bunch of solar energy. What are we doing with New Mexico, Arizona, and vast portions of Texas? Start putting up solar panels. I know the sun goes down every day.....but I'll bet in about 10 hours or so it will be back up! Put up wind turbines in the plains. How hard are the coal companies and natural gas companies fighting this right now? I'll bet a whole bunch.

As for rushing into something? Uh, what don't we understand about solar energy other than we should have developed it a long time ago? Hell, they had a solar powerd car at Stark Technical College in Canton Ohio 25 years ago. After 25 years I would venture to say we know a whole bunch.

JimN
05-27-2009, 05:51 PM
The people in general want to be green and be responsible, however big business is/has prevented that from happening because of greed. It's disgusting.

As for propane and natural gas, they give off CO2, and if leaked they are even a worse greenhouse gas themselves. We have the ability and the sunlight in this country to produce a whole bunch of solar energy. What are we doing with New Mexico, Arizona, and vast portions of Texas? Start putting up solar panels. I know the sun goes down every day.....but I'll bet in about 10 hours or so it will be back up! Put up wind turbines in the plains. How hard are the coal companies and natural gas companies fighting this right now? I'll bet a whole bunch.

As for rushing into something? Uh, what don't we understand about solar energy other than we should have developed it a long time ago? Hell, they had a solar powerd car at Stark Technical College in Canton Ohio 25 years ago. After 25 years I would venture to say we know a whole bunch.

People don't want to be green, they want everything cheap, in great quantities, at their convenience and you know it. Business sells what people want and if they come up with something new, it's human nature to want what someone else has or to be the first on their block with the new toy. The first electric cars were over 100 years ago and the inventors didn't have to sell their patents but they saw dollar signs, just like anyone else does. Globe Union, now Johnson Controls, was working on electric cars in the early '60s but battery technology was the reason it couldn't be a viable alternative.

You do know that the area around large solar arrays becomes much hotter than before, right? Did you know that in high temperature locations, the panels need to be cooled in order for them to survive? That make large solar panels an ideal way to heat water but when HOAs and cities have rules against things like this, it's hard for a homeowner to be a little self-sufficient. Also, most materials for solar collection still aren't all that efficient and the processes for making them aren't totally clean. Solar cars are hardly new. GM has been working on them for decades, as have all of the engineering schools, automakers and independent designers. I was in PHX in the late '80s and they had a group of solar powered cars at the Proving Grounds, where they were being used for research. These cars were from all over the country, and Europe. When I was in TX and AZ in summer of '01, a national solar car race was going on and I saw a lot of them when I drove to PHX. People "want to drive a big, heavy vehicle because it's safer", according to the SUV crowd. That's BS, but they're often too lazy to find out for themselves why.

captain planet
05-27-2009, 05:53 PM
Our government and a large number of people in this country won't allow us to be proud of our country. They also think everyone should have the same amount of whatever they want, not say things that may make someone else sad, and that what they do is OK but they should be able to tell everyone what to do. These people disgust me and I'm sick of what they have changed this country into. They're not all on one side of the political aisle, either, so don't bother telling me I don't like Democrats. I don't like most of their views, and the ones in our government should be put on a barge and floated out to sea but Greenpeace would probably sue us for pollution. Money has no conscience and doesn't care who wants it all, Republican or Democrat and both want as much as they can get but they just go about it in different ways.

China and India want to be the supplier to everyone but they don't want to clean up after themselves, which makes them turds, IMO. The US has helped almost EVERY country on the planet in one way or another and still, we get crapped on by France, Germany and some others when we try to lead the way. Let them take the reins for once and see how it feels to help others. Oh, sorry- I forgot about France being in Viet Nam before us and not being able to get the job done. Congress micro-managing and the media changing the hearts and minds of the US along with the 1960s anti war protesters, most of whom didn't have a clue as to what was really going on over there did their best to undermine the effort. One problem I have with many of the ones who caused problems in the '60s is that they're now in our government. War is always a bad thing but when the media go in and show our position, preparedness and the faces of our people fighting, it undermines the whole effort.

"CO2 should stay relatively low in the atmosphere, you would think, concentrating it's warming effect near the ground."

How does this explain the glaciers receding on mountains? If our weather systems are usually around 60,000 and below, this leaves about 50 miles of really cold air above that altitude, which means the cold air volume in our atmosphere is far greater than the warm/hot air volume. This means the people who gnash and wail about climate change are only concerned for their survival, not that of the whole planet and all of its systems. Once we're all gone, the whole thing reboots and things go back to normal. What about volcanos? You want to put a filter over them? Mount St Helen, Mount Pinatubo, The ones in Mexico, Italy and Iceland have put far more carbon into the atmosphere than mankind ever has, and that's only since 1980. Kīlauea has been continuously active since 1983.

"There is no reason not get off of fossil fuels as quickly as we can."

Do you know of a good alternative that's available in sufficient quantity and won't pollute? Sunlight is great but the materials that make up the systems for exploiting the light can't pollute, either. Ethanol? Please. Propane and CNG are clean burning- why not use them more? They use propane inside factories for fork lifts and I don't see people keeling over from the fumes.

"As quickly as we can" is another way to say "Let's rush into something that we don't completely understand". Sound familiar?

I'm not a climatologist, nor do I claim to be one. I tried to take Climatology in college my last year of college, however it wouldn't fit into my schedule.

"This means the people who gnash and wail about climate change are only concerned for their survival, not that of the whole planet "

This is not true in my case. I'm more worried about my children and my childrens childrens survival because they are the ones that are going to have to deal with our mess we have given them. What you are saying is a pretty selfish thing to assume on people.



Here is one way I try to stay green. This is the only cereal that we buy in my house.

http://www.momsbestnaturals.com/

Here is why....

http://www.momsbestnaturals.com/about-us/our-commitment.php

Been eating all these for over a year now.

Jorski
05-27-2009, 05:58 PM
The half life of carbon has nothing to do with it. Anything that's suspended in a medium will eventually settle out if it's more dense than that medium. Constant turbulence will slow this but in periods of calm, it still settles out. In the case of airborne particulates, they can be scrubbed out by rain, trees, etc, so that's in addition to the normal depletion. Carbon on/in the ground isn't necessarily a bad thing either, especially if it's in the right form and other contaminants pass through that layer.


Well. perhaps if everything around it was in a steady state, no wind, no temperature change, no jets streams etc...but since we have those things, half life, has everything to do with the problem.


Complex systems may be delicate but if they actually modeled this process, they would need to estimate the relationship in size of their model to the whole environment, which would be ridiculously difficult, at best. There's no possibility of measuring the whole atmosphere's volume/temperature, chemical composition and density in one event and since discreet measurements are often used for climatology, it presents problems when credibility and accuracy are concerned.


Predicting large, long term events, like say climate change can be easier than small discreet variable events. For example, you probably wouldn't want to predict if the weather will be warmer or cooler or if it is going to rain in 2 weeks. At the same time, you would likely feel comfortable predicting that January will be colder than July. So you can't simply say that climate change is just too difficult to model.

How can an atmosphere that's as large as ours, be as sensitive as you seem to be alluding when there are so many systems in place that are working to keep it clean?

Because like many systems that cleanse, once overwhelmed they become unbelievably sensitive. At the same time that we are quickly increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, we are deforsting at a tremeandous clip. We are increasing our footprint on this filter dramatically.

Your liver is a good analogy, it metabolizes alcohol at a considerable rate. After you reach its' maximum ability to metabolize the alcohol in your system it takes a relatively small incremental amount to tip the balance and your liver will be in trouble.

In climate change it is the snow ball effect of these tipping point that make relatively small changes in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere so dangerous. Melting permafrost allows methane to escape and that is a significant problem. We get a bit warmer and glaciers melt, we lose the reflectivity of the snow and less heat gets reflected away from the earth's surface etc.

Anyhow, it is clear that there is no amount of science that would satisfy your skepticism...to each his own.

JimN
05-27-2009, 06:03 PM
I'm not a climatologist, nor do I claim to be one. I tried to take Climatology in college my last year of college, however it wouldn't fit into my schedule.

"This means the people who gnash and wail about climate change are only concerned for their survival, not that of the whole planet "

This is not true in my case. I'm more worried about my children and my childrens childrens survival because they are the ones that are going to have to deal with our mess we have given them. What you are saying is a pretty selfish thing to assume on people.



Here is one way I try to stay green. This is the only cereal that we buy in my house.

http://www.momsbestnaturals.com/

Here is why....

http://www.momsbestnaturals.com/about-us/our-commitment.php

Been eating all these for over a year now.

I meant mankinds' survival, not just one generation. The rest of the planet doesn't care if we survive. I'm not saying we don't have an effect on the planet, I just don't think it's as drastic as they're saying. The fact that the Northern Hemisphere had a Mini Ice Age in the 1600s tells me that the climate does what it wants, when it wants. Needing to point out that you don't think this is the case isn't self-centered? I wasn't referring to you, or any one person. As far as selfish, tell me Algore didn't do the movie and make all of the speeches for the recognition and money, then turn around and go back to his big house with all of the lights and other power hungry appliances and use a dummy company to "buy" carbon credits so everything would be hunky-dory.

captain planet
05-27-2009, 06:21 PM
People don't want to be green, they want everything cheap, in great quantities, at their convenience and you know it. Business sells what people want and if they come up with something new, it's human nature to want what someone else has or to be the first on their block with the new toy. The first electric cars were over 100 years ago and the inventors didn't have to sell their patents but they saw dollar signs, just like anyone else does. Globe Union, now Johnson Controls, was working on electric cars in the early '60s but battery technology was the reason it couldn't be a viable alternative.

You do know that the area around large solar arrays becomes much hotter than before, right? Did you know that in high temperature locations, the panels need to be cooled in order for them to survive? That make large solar panels an ideal way to heat water but when HOAs and cities have rules against things like this, it's hard for a homeowner to be a little self-sufficient. Also, most materials for solar collection still aren't all that efficient and the processes for making them aren't totally clean. Solar cars are hardly new. GM has been working on them for decades, as have all of the engineering schools, automakers and independent designers. I was in PHX in the late '80s and they had a group of solar powered cars at the Proving Grounds, where they were being used for research. These cars were from all over the country, and Europe. When I was in TX and AZ in summer of '01, a national solar car race was going on and I saw a lot of them when I drove to PHX. People "want to drive a big, heavy vehicle because it's safer", according to the SUV crowd. That's BS, but they're often too lazy to find out for themselves why.

You obviously don't recycle, have curbside pickup, or drop off your recycling at night. Every recycling drop off center near me has had to get more bins because there are so many people recycling now they fill them up. In Jackson Twp. near my house there is a drive through recycling station. The line for people dropping off recycling is sometimes a 5 to 10 minute wait. Evey year they have a household hazardous waste disposal day at Stark Tech. it gets bigger and bigger. You are wrong on this one my friend. This is one of the few things that I see people doing that makes me feel good about them.

The rest of what you say....well, your right. People want things cheap and a lot of them. Gluttonous consumerism is rampant in America, and it is disgusting.


It would be interesting to see who came up with the rules to keep people from putting solar panels in these locations. I'm no solar panel expert, but if we can put a man on the moon, put thousands of songs on a credit card, we can figure out solar energy. It can be done, as long as the coal and oil a**holes stay out of the way.

captain planet
05-27-2009, 06:30 PM
I meant mankinds' survival, not just one generation. The rest of the planet doesn't care if we survive. I'm not saying we don't have an effect on the planet, I just don't think it's as drastic as they're saying. The fact that the Northern Hemisphere had a Mini Ice Age in the 1600s tells me that the climate does what it wants, when it wants. Needing to point out that you don't think this is the case isn't self-centered? I wasn't referring to you, or any one person. As far as selfish, tell me Algore didn't do the movie and make all of the speeches for the recognition and money, then turn around and go back to his big house with all of the lights and other power hungry appliances and use a dummy company to "buy" carbon credits so everything would be hunky-dory.

Funny, that was before the industrial revolution, and I may be wrong about this, but I think there was a major volcanic erruption somewhere in there that contributed to that event. I will have to double check when I get a chance.

Uh, as for Al Gore. I don't know the man, I wish I did. I know that if I were in his position, I would have done all the things he has done for awareness rather than money, but that is just me. I know that about myself, that is the reason I would have done them. As for his house, that is a dissappointment. I would have taken the money and put solar panels and compact wind turbines on the house. However, that e-mail that floats around about his house, uh, there isn't that much gas being consumed by that house, it's in Tennessee for crying out loud. It doesn't get that cold in TN.

JimN
05-27-2009, 06:43 PM
You obviously don't recycle, have curbside pickup, or drop off your recycling at night. Every recycling drop off center near me has had to get more bins because there are so many people recycling now they fill them up. In Jackson Twp. near my house there is a drive through recycling station. The line for people dropping off recycling is sometimes a 5 to 10 minute wait. Evey year they have a household hazardous waste disposal day at Stark Tech. it gets bigger and bigger. You are wrong on this one my friend. This is one of the few things that I see people doing that makes me feel good about them.

The rest of what you say....well, your right. People want things cheap and a lot of them. Gluttonous consumerism is rampant in America, and it is disgusting.


It would be interesting to see who came up with the rules to keep people from putting solar panels in these locations. I'm no solar panel expert, but if we can put a man on the moon, put thousands of songs on a credit card, we can figure out solar energy. It can be done, as long as the coal and oil a**holes stay out of the way.

I don't? What makes you think so? I NEVER put paint and other chemicals in the trash, I compost, I DO recycle any plastic/cardboard/paper I get, I refuse to have the newspaper delivered to me because it's a waste of paper and ink (my opinion of the paper) and I don't like the accumulation that results. I don't burn anything in my yard, don't have a fireplace and my truck doesn't belch clouds of anything besides water vapor. I also recycle any wire or cable that is left over from the jobs I do. I use quite a few cordless tools and I can charge them while I drive. If I could, I'd get off of the grid completely and as soon as I can, I want to move to a warmer area so I can put up solar panels that also heat water. You're jumping to conclusions about me that you shouldn't, just because I don't agree with the Chicken Littles who claim that the sky is falling as fast as they say. I never said it's not falling but the government thinks they can make wholesale changes that will reverse it, when that's not true. The US leading the way in this would almost be kind of like the most environmentally conscious and active person on the block and your next door neighbor uses coal to heat their house. We didn't demand it as citizens and the government dictated it. Even after CAFE standards, Clean Air Act, EPA guidelines and all of those didn't stop people from buying gas guzzling cars and trucks. For all of teh talk by people who say they want cleaner air, they sure don't impress me as having tried. Pelosi flying all over the country in a military jet is another example of the hypocracy that makes me sick

How much gas/diesel is wasted in that 5-10 minute line?

"It would be interesting to see who came up with the rules to keep people from putting solar panels in these locations."

People who like being able to tell others what they can and can't do, that's who. Now, Congress wants people to paint their roof white in certain areas. That might work, if they stop using asphalt for roads and parking lots.

JimN
05-27-2009, 06:50 PM
Funny, that was before the industrial revolution, and I may be wrong about this, but I think there was a major volcanic erruption somewhere in there that contributed to that event. I will have to double check when I get a chance.

Uh, as for Al Gore. I don't know the man, I wish I did. I know that if I were in his position, I would have done all the things he has done for awareness rather than money, but that is just me. I know that about myself, that is the reason I would have done them. As for his house, that is a dissappointment. I would have taken the money and put solar panels and compact wind turbines on the house. However, that e-mail that floats around about his house, uh, there isn't that much gas being consumed by that house, it's in Tennessee for crying out loud. It doesn't get that cold in TN.

Vesuvius wasn't a big enough eruption to cause the Mini Ice Age.

"As for his house, that is a dissappointment. I would have taken the money and put solar panels and compact wind turbines on the house."

You mean like the house W built in TX? The one with the 25K gallon holding tank and purifier for gray water that was used for anything that wasn't consumed, like toilets, landscaping, etc?

It's in TN, but they still use gas or electricity to heat the place and saying that it doesn't take much to heat a 18000 sq ft house is not necessarily accurate. I'm sure they cook a lot and if they entertain as much as I suspect they do, that ups the ante. Plus, I don't care if they use electricity or gas, heating water isn't the most efficient use of energy.

6ballsisall
05-27-2009, 06:50 PM
How about these apples fellas?

House #1
A 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400 per month. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home.. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern"snow belt"area. It's in the South..

6ballsisall
05-27-2009, 06:51 PM
House #2
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university. This house incorporates every"green"feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground.

The water(usually 67 degrees F) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses nofossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Waste-water from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.

6ballsisall
05-27-2009, 06:51 PM
HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville , Tennessee ;
it is the abode of the"environmentalist" Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford , Texas ;
it is the residence of exPresident of the United States , George W. Bush.

So whose house is more gentle on the environment? Yet another story you WONT hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, its truly "an inconvenient truth."

I sure hope this gets passed to everyone!
And, yes ... I DID check Snopes prior to forwarding it.
You can verify it at :http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

Jorski
05-27-2009, 07:05 PM
and that means of course that there is no such thing as global warming?!? May as well tell the rest of the story 6balls...

Gore gets green kudos for home renovation
Solar and geothermal power used in 80-year-old mansion

Al and Tipper Gore bought this home in Nashville, Tenn., in 2002 for $2.3 million. They spent an undisclosed amount to lower their use of fossil fuels for electricity and heat in the home.


NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Al Gore, who was criticized for high electric bills at his Tennessee mansion, has completed a host of improvements to make the home more energy efficient, and a building-industry group has praised the house as one of the nation's most environmentally friendly.

The former vice president has installed solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal heating. He also replaced all incandescent lights with compact fluorescent or light-emitting diode bulbs.

"Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don't know how it could have been rated any higher," said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design.

http://http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22248699/

6ballsisall
05-27-2009, 07:11 PM
and that means of course that there is no such thing as global warming?!?

You bet! In addition it means:

Captain Planet can continue to drive his Suburban
Jorski can keep investing in Oil Stocks
And Al Gore is a total hack

Ric
05-27-2009, 07:37 PM
Hey I have a great idea! The current administration should mandate all homeowners in the US do this. After all, the US is the problem. It always is.....


I am confident you missed Jeff's point mister jorski. The point is, BUSH, that mean ol evil guy from Texas did all this without grandstanding and talking... He simply did it. Gore??????? did it after he was thrashed for his wasteful lifestyle... The difference??? Character. Ya know, that thing you do when nobody is looking?

I am right about that mister balls?


and that means of course that there is no such thing as global warming?!? May as well tell the rest of the story 6balls...

Gore gets green kudos for home renovation
Solar and geothermal power used in 80-year-old mansion

Al and Tipper Gore bought this home in Nashville, Tenn., in 2002 for $2.3 million. They spent an undisclosed amount to lower their use of fossil fuels for electricity and heat in the home.


NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Al Gore, who was criticized for high electric bills at his Tennessee mansion, has completed a host of improvements to make the home more energy efficient, and a building-industry group has praised the house as one of the nation's most environmentally friendly.

The former vice president has installed solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal heating. He also replaced all incandescent lights with compact fluorescent or light-emitting diode bulbs.

"Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don't know how it could have been rated any higher," said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design.

http://http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22248699/

03 35th Anniversary
05-27-2009, 07:37 PM
and that means of course that there is no such thing as global warming?!? May as well tell the rest of the story 6balls...

Gore gets green kudos for home renovation
Solar and geothermal power used in 80-year-old mansion

Al and Tipper Gore bought this home in Nashville, Tenn., in 2002 for $2.3 million. They spent an undisclosed amount to lower their use of fossil fuels for electricity and heat in the home.


NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Al Gore, who was criticized for high electric bills at his Tennessee mansion, has completed a host of improvements to make the home more energy efficient, and a building-industry group has praised the house as one of the nation's most environmentally friendly.

The former vice president has installed solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal heating. He also replaced all incandescent lights with compact fluorescent or light-emitting diode bulbs.

"Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don't know how it could have been rated any higher," said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design.

http://http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22248699/


What??? Your not going to take any jabs at ole George for beating Al to the punch???

What your copy and pasted post says, is that Al only did it cause of the negative press he was gettin!!!

6ballsisall
05-27-2009, 07:40 PM
hmmmmmm...did anyone else notice the house pic on MSNBC Jorski posted looks significantly different than the house pic of Al Gores previously posted?

Very good point 03 35th...........

TinaSkiGirl
05-27-2009, 08:52 PM
Oh Boy another one of these threads!!!

I better be careful. The last time I posted in one of these I made a man cry when I tested his "Manhood"

Jorski
05-27-2009, 10:00 PM
The thing is, whether or not Al Gore is a good guy, is not the issue at all.

He would argue that buying carbon off-sets forgives the excess use of carbon...that happens to be something that I disagree with. As far as existing houses and cars, there can easily be more energy used in a total makeover or replacement than can be saved by going the whole way with a green effort.

If Al Gore lived in a tent, would that make you believe in climate change ? Probably not.

JimN
05-27-2009, 10:50 PM
Oh Boy another one of these threads!!!

I better be careful. The last time I posted in one of these I made a man cry when I tested his "Manhood"

Mind if I ask how you tested it?

JimN
05-27-2009, 10:54 PM
The thing is, whether or not Al Gore is a good guy, is not the issue at all.

He would argue that buying carbon off-sets forgives the excess use of carbon...that happens to be something that I disagree with. As far as existing houses and cars, there can easily be more energy used in a total makeover or replacement than can be saved by going the whole way with a green effort.

If Al Gore lived in a tent, would that make you believe in climate change ? Probably not.

What he lives in would be immaterial if it had initially been inline with what he was preaching but it was anything but that and as far as him winning an Oscar and Nobel Prize, it makes him a hypocrite in the "Don't do as I do, do as I say" mold. I have a huge problem with that. "Practice what you preach" is a much better way to do things, IMO and I completely agree with you about the carbon offsets. That's basically just like creative accounting.

Jorski
05-28-2009, 12:12 AM
Jimn,

Don't think I worded my last post very well.

If you decide that it's material where al Gore lives in order to judge him, that's fine with me.

What I meant was that where Al Gore lives or if he is a hypocrite, is immaterial to the validity of climate change, or to the OP's question, "is going green a farce?".

I can certainly see the "hypocrite" angle; on the other hand, he was responsible for creating a tremeandous amount of awareness. For me, that is a good thing.

We all have our "hypocrite" moments; mine are that I love boating and water-skiing, and absolutely treasure watching my daughter compete in figure skating and watching my son play hockey. Don't know of there could possibly be a more energy inefficient thing to do than to be involved in supporting buildings that manufacture ice during the summer.:(

Maristar210
05-28-2009, 12:27 AM
The thing is, whether or not Al Gore is a good guy, is not the issue at all.

He would argue that buying carbon off-sets forgives the excess use of carbon...that happens to be something that I disagree with. As far as existing houses and cars, there can easily be more energy used in a total makeover or replacement than can be saved by going the whole way with a green effort.

If Al Gore lived in a tent, would that make you believe in climate change ? Probably not.

Um Jorski?

Al Gore? The inventor of the internet and the biggest tree hugging person on the planet is a hippocrit. He knows he is and laughs at it. He is one of the worst carbon footprint examples known to man.


I think I go light some gas in an effort to keep up with the hugger....8p

JimN
05-28-2009, 01:18 AM
Jimn,

Don't think I worded my last post very well.

If you decide that it's material where al Gore lives in order to judge him, that's fine with me.

What I meant was that where Al Gore lives or if he is a hypocrite, is immaterial to the validity of climate change, or to the OP's question, "is going green a farce?".

I can certainly see the "hypocrite" angle; on the other hand, he was responsible for creating a tremeandous amount of awareness. For me, that is a good thing.

We all have our "hypocrite" moments; mine are that I love boating and water-skiing, and absolutely treasure watching my daughter compete in figure skating and watching my son play hockey. Don't know of there could possibly be a more energy inefficient thing to do than to be involved in supporting buildings that manufacture ice during the summer.:(

Senator Gaylord Nelson proposed the first Earth Day in 1970, although Wisconsin has produced a long line of impressive environmentalists, including John Muir and Aldo Leopold, all of whom have done far more than Gore in bringing awareness to the environment. He happened to make a lot of noise about it at a time when he was already getting more than his share of sympathy for losing the election (no, I don't want to get into a discussion about how he lost), so he ended up looking like some kind of hero. Accepting this praise was BS, IMO, since he really didn't do the research.

I have a problem with academic types who do studies that end up contradicting each other, using the new data as "proof" that we'll be completely screwed in a short time unless xxx happens and if you remember the hole in the ozone layer, I remember reading that some of the scientists who originally theorized how it works, how it was depleted and how it closed had decided that it was probably a cyclical event. Some of these same scientists are now saying that we're on a one way path to global warming, but we have been having colder winters, more snow, colder deep ocean temperatures and all kinds of other things that will eventually cool the planet.

Since no discussion of increasing temperatures is complete by itself, here's some info about the Little Ice Age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Here's another interesting little tidbit I found:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16976-did-lead-cause-global-cooling.html

I think it would be impossible to read and digest all of the information on this and this is why many pick and choose what they disseminate- they agree with it when they see it.

brucemac
05-28-2009, 03:02 AM
i think scammers scam. always be scammers. always be victims. victims cry. scammers keep scammin and everybody else inbetween from haters to wallflowers should get up. stand up and stretch. do anything. that's livin. should keep on livin. xxchtcyhjhhh-- cheers!

/edited for content

TX.X-30 fan
05-28-2009, 01:08 PM
We would have had electric cars a long time ago had the petroleum companies not come in and bought up the patent and the company developing longer lasting batteries. Ever see the movie, "Who Killed the Electric Car"? The people in general want to be green and be responsible, however big business is/has prevented that from happening because of greed. It's disgusting.





YOU NEED TO GET A FOIL HAT. :D


Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.

Hey here is a novel theory climate change is normal. ;)


It is the single largest scam in history and created to Tax the piss out of everyone. Make no mistake obana is going to get carbon credits cap and trade and the american comsumer will pay. Screw Him And All His Eggheaded Socialists.

TX.X-30 fan
05-28-2009, 01:10 PM
Al gore is selling snake oil, look at the millions he makes selling green, remember if you want the truth look for the money trail.

Jorski
05-28-2009, 01:25 PM
There is a bigger "money trail" determined to preserve the status quo at any cost.

He is/has donated all profits from the book and movie to a public awareness campaign...so no money trail on that one.

Jesus_Freak
05-28-2009, 02:12 PM
Thanks a lot! You just made me feel really old! PCs didn't exist when I was in middle school and they didn't teach us math that was as advanced as your little Excel formula (which didn't work for the numbers i entered, BTW).

Sorry dude...didnt mean to cause trouble. If you type =randbetween(0,1000) into an excel cell, you will get a random number between 0 and 1000. Try it again. ;)

JF...they (MIT) did not conduct the research by spinning a roulette wheel. I suspect that you know that; or, at least I hope that you do.

Yes I am aware that they did not physically use the wheel, which is why I mentioned non-linear stability analysis.

Further, complex systems are often delicate, so why do you find it so surprising that we can affect how our climate functions?

Complex (I assume you mean non-linear) systems can be delicate and can respond very strongly to forcing functions......when those forcing functions are not vastly over-shadowed by other, more highly variable, functions that normally keep the system in check.

mdskier
05-28-2009, 03:11 PM
There is a bigger "money trail" determined to preserve the status quo at any cost.

He is/has donated all profits from the book and movie to a public awareness campaign...so no money trail on that one.

I think you may need a foil hat as well. The donated profits are pennies compared to what he makes from selling "carbon offsets" and the like. I'll give Gore this, he is pretty smart about how he went about starting and supporting the craze and stands to profit in a huge way from it.

Too bad that every liberal in the country will stand behind Gore and sing his praises and he knows it.

Those same folks will cry that Bush started the Iraq war in order to help Haliburton profit, but turn the other cheek to even the thought that Gore would do that with the so called Global Warming BS.

captain planet
05-28-2009, 03:56 PM
You bet! In addition it means:

Captain Planet can continue to drive his Suburban
Jorski can keep investing in Oil Stocks
And Al Gore is a total hack

If I could win the argument with my wife, it would be gone, TRUST ME! :rolleyes:
This is a battle that I can't win fellas. :o She won't give it up. I just hope it dies bad enough I can convince her to get rid of it. When that happens I intend to purchase the most efficient vehicle that can pull my boat.

captain planet
05-28-2009, 04:06 PM
I don't? What makes you think so? I NEVER put paint and other chemicals in the trash, I compost, I DO recycle any plastic/cardboard/paper I get, I refuse to have the newspaper delivered to me because it's a waste of paper and ink (my opinion of the paper) and I don't like the accumulation that results. I don't burn anything in my yard, don't have a fireplace and my truck doesn't belch clouds of anything besides water vapor. I also recycle any wire or cable that is left over from the jobs I do. I use quite a few cordless tools and I can charge them while I drive. If I could, I'd get off of the grid completely and as soon as I can, I want to move to a warmer area so I can put up solar panels that also heat water. You're jumping to conclusions about me that you shouldn't, just because I don't agree with the Chicken Littles who claim that the sky is falling as fast as they say. I never said it's not falling but the government thinks they can make wholesale changes that will reverse it, when that's not true. The US leading the way in this would almost be kind of like the most environmentally conscious and active person on the block and your next door neighbor uses coal to heat their house. We didn't demand it as citizens and the government dictated it. Even after CAFE standards, Clean Air Act, EPA guidelines and all of those didn't stop people from buying gas guzzling cars and trucks. For all of teh talk by people who say they want cleaner air, they sure don't impress me as having tried. Pelosi flying all over the country in a military jet is another example of the hypocracy that makes me sick

How much gas/diesel is wasted in that 5-10 minute line?

"It would be interesting to see who came up with the rules to keep people from putting solar panels in these locations."

People who like being able to tell others what they can and can't do, that's who. Now, Congress wants people to paint their roof white in certain areas. That might work, if they stop using asphalt for roads and parking lots.

I apologize if my tone came across the wrong way, however you said people don't want to be green. I showed you how I see them trying to be green, then you tell us how you are green......so you kind of contradict yourself a little. You say nobody wants to be green, yet you yourself are being green.....you are somebody, right? Hell, even TX admits to buying compact flourescents. I was merely trying to point that out to you, didn't mean to ruffle your feathers or make assumptions. ;)

TX.X-30 fan
05-28-2009, 06:03 PM
In my opinion its not green, but economical to have a house that uses energy efficiently. It reduces my bills and it greatly increases the level of comfort in my house. Double pane windows lower outside noise as well as keep the heat out thus making us more comfortable.

captain planet
05-28-2009, 06:14 PM
In my opinion its not green, but economical to have a house that uses energy efficiently. It reduces my bills and it greatly increases the level of comfort in my house. Double pane windows lower outside noise as well as keep the heat out thus making us more comfortable.

TX, it's OK to admit your green. It won't hurt, I promise. :D

TX.X-30 fan
05-28-2009, 06:14 PM
Austin plans a great big solar farm and a few weeks later 20,000 homes had roofs totaled by hail.

Solar is not here yet the panels don't produce enough to be financially viable. They are going to have to pay 3x the price of current electricity.

How many will have electricity with a 1,000 dollar a month bill?? That is where obama is taking us, to where millions of people that can't afford lights.

TX.X-30 fan
05-28-2009, 06:21 PM
TX, it's OK to admit your green. It won't hurt, I promise. :D





I'm not driving a sewing machine. :mad:

JimN
05-28-2009, 07:23 PM
Sorry dude...didnt mean to cause trouble. If you type =randbetween(0,1000) into an excel cell, you will get a random number between 0 and 1000. Try it again. ;)

Still didn't work. I copy/pasted it, typed it in the cell and in the formula bar but still no joy.

I guess I should have put a smilie at the end, huh?

JimN
05-28-2009, 07:27 PM
If I could win the argument with my wife, it would be gone, TRUST ME! :rolleyes:
This is a battle that I can't win fellas. :o She won't give it up. I just hope it dies bad enough I can convince her to get rid of it. When that happens I intend to purchase the most efficient vehicle that can pull my boat.

Why doesn't she want to give it up- "it's safer than a small car"? They blow through most other cars like a bus through a rabbit but they don't exactly stop on a dime, either. Reaction time has to be awfully fast in order to avoid collisions.

Tell her that you already did the deal to get her a Prius and see what happens. Let us know which direction to look tonight so we can see the fireworks.

JimN
05-28-2009, 07:38 PM
I apologize if my tone came across the wrong way, however you said people don't want to be green. I showed you how I see them trying to be green, then you tell us how you are green......so you kind of contradict yourself a little. You say nobody wants to be green, yet you yourself are being green.....you are somebody, right? Hell, even TX admits to buying compact flourescents. I was merely trying to point that out to you, didn't mean to ruffle your feathers or make assumptions. ;)

I never said I don't want to be green, I said I don't agree with the concept of waiting in a line for 5-10 minutes with the engine running after having driven there, in order to recycle. If everyone drove there, parked and walked the stuff over to where it needs to go, it would be different. I also never said that nobody wants to be green, I said people as a rule don't but not necessarily all people because it's not always convenient for them to. I use CF bulbs, too and I haven't replaced one yet so in theory, I have saved money by using them. They're not the cleanest to get rid of either, and they need to be recycled. I got the warm light type and unlike florescent tubes, I don't see these flicker out of the corner of my eye.

I think a lot of people don't make the effort because it changes their routine. Recycling takes time and effort, composting can be a PITA but it's free dirt, so it's worth it, IMO. For the people who do no work in their yard, it's not an attractive task and they don't really see a benefit but it really cuts down on sewage/land fill volume when food scraps are used.

TMCNo1
05-28-2009, 07:58 PM
For the people who do no work in their yard, it's not an attractive task and they don't really see a benefit but it really cuts down on sewage/land fill volume when food scraps are used.

I don't have a compost pile, I have (3) four legged barking dogs that are seldom fed by their owners, that we feed the food scraps to, they poop and turn the grass green, grass that the neighbor, who doesn't work in his yard either, doesn't mow. Man, are we going green around here!:(:rolleyes:

JimN
05-28-2009, 08:53 PM
I don't have a compost pile, I have (3) four legged barking dogs that are seldom fed by their owners, that we feed the food scraps to, they poop and turn the grass green, grass that the neighbor, who doesn't work in his yard either, doesn't mow. Man, are we going green around here!:(:rolleyes:

I don't know if it gets really cold in winter where you are but here, if a dog owner lets their dog crap in the next door neighbor's yard on the snow, the recipient has the option of letting it freeze, move it to the driveway or sidewalk and use their snowblower to launch it onto the dog owner's garage roof, where it sits until spring and when it thaws, it's pretty ripe.

TMCNo1
05-28-2009, 09:06 PM
I don't know if it gets really cold in winter where you are but here, if a dog owner lets their dog crap in the next door neighbor's yard on the snow, the recipient has the option of letting it freeze, move it to the driveway or sidewalk and use their snowblower to launch it onto the dog owner's garage roof, where it sits until spring and when it thaws, it's pretty ripe.

The dogs are in a fenced in back yard, he had a wife that left him, and 2 lazy daughters, has his power meter and water meters pulled about every other month, it rains in the spring/summer/fall so the dogs have water to drink. In the winter, the dogs automatic watering apparatus freezes/burst and sprays water for 5 to 10 days and freezes, so their carbon footprint is at a minimum, all things considered!:o

Ric
05-29-2009, 10:25 AM
Jimn,

Don't think I worded my last post very well.

If you decide that it's material where al Gore lives in order to judge him, that's fine with me.

What I meant was that where Al Gore lives or if he is a hypocrite, is immaterial to the validity of climate change, or to the OP's question, "is going green a farce?".

I can certainly see the "hypocrite" angle; on the other hand, he was responsible for creating a tremeandous amount of awareness. For me, that is a good thing.

We all have our "hypocrite" moments; mine are that I love boating and water-skiing, and absolutely treasure watching my daughter compete in figure skating and watching my son play hockey. Don't know of there could possibly be a more energy inefficient thing to do than to be involved in supporting buildings that manufacture ice during the summer.:(
Maybe we're getting somewhere... You don't have to hate yourself for loving skiing, hockey and anything else your family wants to do.

It's okay. Say it with me. "It's okay to have a ski boat, it's okay to let my kids play hockey in the summer. I am not trashing the environment. I'm a human. I live with and use the resources God gave me. I'm not wasteful like algore."

There.... Feel better? If not, ump has a new drug that might work?

captain planet
05-29-2009, 10:56 AM
Why doesn't she want to give it up- "it's safer than a small car"? They blow through most other cars like a bus through a rabbit but they don't exactly stop on a dime, either. Reaction time has to be awfully fast in order to avoid collisions.

Tell her that you already did the deal to get her a Prius and see what happens. Let us know which direction to look tonight so we can see the fireworks.

That is only a part of the reason she wants to keep it. Facts show SUV's are less safe than cars because of roll-overs which cause most injury in a crash and on that she looses the argument. At first it was because of all the stuff that goes along with having twins (double stroller, two of this, two of that, two pack and plays, two height chairs, etc.). Well, they are almost 5 now so that argument is starting to hold less water. Now it is she just likes it and doesn't want to get rid of it. So, fine, we're keeping it because it is paid for month after next. If it weren't almost paid for it would be on the trading block.

Next summer my Focus is getting replaced by the most efficient vehicle I can find. As of now it looks like it will be a VW Jetta TDI w/ manual transmission. 50 MPG baby, and I can't wait! :banana::woohoo: I'll be able to run that car for 15 years. :) If the Suburban were to die tomorrow, as of now it would be replaced with a Honda Ridgeline which gets about 24 MPG. You know of anything more efficient that can pull my PS 190?

JimN
05-29-2009, 11:09 AM
Now it is she just likes it and doesn't want to get rid of it. So, fine, we're keeping it because it is paid for month after next.

Remember this sentence and use it next time she wants you to get rid of something you really like.

captain planet
05-29-2009, 11:20 AM
Remember this sentence and use it next time she wants you to get rid of something you really like.

Why Jim, it sounds like you are passing out free marital advise.:rolleyes: Problem is, we don't have anything that I really like besides the boat and our trailer at the lake.

She won't let me sell my/our Wet Jet either, so should I give her a choice? The suburban or the Wet Jet, pick one?

Maybe we should start a marital advise thread. :o

flipper
05-29-2009, 11:47 AM
I don't know if it gets really cold in winter where you are but here, if a dog owner lets their dog crap in the next door neighbor's yard on the snow, the recipient has the option of letting it freeze, move it to the driveway or sidewalk and use their snowblower to launch it onto the dog owner's garage roof, where it sits until spring and when it thaws, it's pretty ripe.

:uglyhamme:uglyhamme:uglyhamme


That's the best one I have herd yet

Jesus_Freak
06-01-2009, 01:41 PM
Still didn't work. I copy/pasted it, typed it in the cell and in the formula bar but still no joy.

I just did it again to make sure I wasnt sniffing glue. Worked fine in excel 2007. In which decade was your version of excel issued?:D

Jorski
06-01-2009, 03:27 PM
Part and parcel to the problems with CO2 in the atmosphere, are the problems with CO2 causing an increase in the acidity in our Oceans. As I am sure you are aware, the oceans are one of the largest parts of the earth's systems that clean our air and capture CO2.

Increased acidity in the ocean interferes with calcium production nd thus harms coral reefs and plankton - which help the world's oceans consume 2 billion tons of CO2 per year.

Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide
30 Jun 2005

Carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted to the atmosphere by human activities is being absorbed by the oceans, making them more acidic (lowering the pH the measure of acidity).

Evidence indicates that emissions of carbon dioxide from human activities over the past 200 years have already led to a reduction in the average pH of surface seawater of 0.1 units and could fall by 0.5 units by the year 2100. This pH is probably lower than has been experienced for hundreds of millennia and, critically, at a rate of change probably 100 times greater than at any time over this period.

The report outlines our best understanding of the impacts of these chemical changes on the oceans. The impacts will be greater for some regions and ecosystems, and will be most severe for coral reefs and the Southern Ocean. The impacts of ocean acidification on other marine organisms and ecosystems are much less certain. We recommend a major international research effort be launched into this relatively new area of research.

We recommend that action needs to be taken now to reduce global emissions of CO2 from human activities to the atmosphere to avoid the risk of irreversible damage from ocean acidification.


http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249

JimN
06-01-2009, 03:38 PM
I just did it again to make sure I wasnt sniffing glue. Worked fine in excel 2007. In which decade was your version of excel issued?:D

Well, there's your problem! I don't have Excel '07.

Carbon Dreams
06-01-2009, 07:13 PM
Part and parcel to the problems with CO2 in the atmosphere, are the problems with CO2 causing an increase in the acidity in our Oceans. As I am sure you are aware, the oceans are one of the largest parts of the earth's systems that clean our air and capture CO2.

Increased acidity in the ocean interferes with calcium production nd thus harms coral reefs and plankton - which help the world's oceans consume 2 billion tons of CO2 per year.

Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide
30 Jun 2005

Carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted to the atmosphere by human activities is being absorbed by the oceans, making them more acidic (lowering the pH the measure of acidity).

Evidence indicates that emissions of carbon dioxide from human activities over the past 200 years have already led to a reduction in the average pH of surface seawater of 0.1 units and could fall by 0.5 units by the year 2100. This pH is probably lower than has been experienced for hundreds of millennia and, critically, at a rate of change probably 100 times greater than at any time over this period.

The report outlines our best understanding of the impacts of these chemical changes on the oceans. The impacts will be greater for some regions and ecosystems, and will be most severe for coral reefs and the Southern Ocean. The impacts of ocean acidification on other marine organisms and ecosystems are much less certain. We recommend a major international research effort be launched into this relatively new area of research.

We recommend that action needs to be taken now to reduce global emissions of CO2 from human activities to the atmosphere to avoid the risk of irreversible damage from ocean acidification.


http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249

Human caused CO2 emissions are so small compared to the natural emissions, it's not even worth the thought. Just another debunked theory that keeps on getting pulled out the garbage.

TX.X-30 fan
06-01-2009, 07:22 PM
Human caused CO2 emissions are so small compared to the natural emissions, it's not even worth the thought. Just another debunked theory that keeps on getting pulled out the garbage.


So the sky is not falling:confused::confused:



:D

JimN
06-01-2009, 07:24 PM
So the sky is not falling:confused::confused:



:D

Blue ice. Yes, it's falling.

TX.X-30 fan
06-01-2009, 09:19 PM
Blue ice. Yes, it's falling.

I have been trying to exhale less, I have no concrete data to show its helping yet.

TX.X-30 fan
06-01-2009, 09:27 PM
I have also modified my diet to exclude legumes, cabbage, stop-and-go burritos and some other problematic foods in an attempt to stem the next cataclysmic green house gas issue.

JimN
06-01-2009, 10:17 PM
I have been trying to exhale less, I have no concrete data to show its helping yet.

How often do you pass out?

TX.X-30 fan
06-01-2009, 10:41 PM
How often do you pass out?




Friday's and satuday's for the most part.

Jorski
06-01-2009, 10:50 PM
Human caused CO2 emissions are so small compared to the natural emissions, it's not even worth the thought. Just another debunked theory that keeps on getting pulled out the garbage.


The acidification of the oceans is unfortunately not "Just another debunked theory" . It is a fact. As for the for the idea that human caused CO2 emissions are small, the only thing has been "debunked" is your statement. We have put this earth and its' systems under extreme duress. We are the marginal producer for you economics types. The issue is well dealt with in this article from New Scientist:

Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
17:00 16 May 2007 by Catherine Brahic

Ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have remained between 180 and 300 parts per million for the past half-a-million years. In recent centuries, however, CO2 levels have risen sharply, to at least 380 ppm (see Greenhouse gases hit new high)

So what's going on? It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon "sinks".

The consumption of terrestrial vegetation by animals and by microbes (rotting, in other words) emits about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, while respiration by vegetation emits another 220 Gt. These huge amounts are balanced by the 440 Gt of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere each year as land plants photosynthesise.

Similarly, parts of the oceans release about 330 Gt of CO2 per year, depending on temperature and rates of photosynthesis by phytoplankton, but other parts usually soak up just as much - and are now soaking up slightly more.

Ocean sinks
Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year, up from 23.5 Gt in the 1990s, according to an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in February 2007 (pdf format). Disturbances to the land - through deforestation and agriculture, for instance - also contribute roughly 5.9 Gt per year.

About 40% of the extra CO2 entering the atmosphere due to human activity is being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, mostly by the oceans. The rest is boosting levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

How can we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere? There are several lines of evidence. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14.

Volcanic misunderstanding
Fossil fuels also contain less carbon-13 than carbon-12, compared with the atmosphere, because the fuels derive from plants, which preferentially take up the more common carbon-12. The ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere and ocean surface waters is steadily falling, showing that more carbon-12 is entering the atmosphere.

Finally, claims that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities are simply not true. In the very distant past, there have been volcanic eruptions so massive that they covered vast areas in lava more than a kilometre thick and appear to have released enough CO2 to warm the planet after the initial cooling caused by the dust (see Wipeout). But even with such gigantic eruptions, most of subsequent warming may have been due to methane released when lava heated coal deposits, rather than from CO2 from the volcanoes (see also Did the North Atlantic's 'birth' warm the world?).

Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. Total emissions from volcanoes on land are estimated to average just 0.3 Gt of CO2 each year - about a hundredth of human emissions (pdf document).

While volcanic emissions are negligible in the short term, over tens of millions of years they do release massive quantities of CO2. But they are balanced by the loss of carbon in ocean sediments subducted under continents through tectonic plate movements. Ultimately, this carbon will be returned to the atmosphere by volcanoes.

http://http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html?full=true&print=true

TX.X-30 fan
06-01-2009, 11:15 PM
All conjecture and opposing views exist.

JimN
06-01-2009, 11:19 PM
If she was a scientist and not a reporter, I think she would have more credibility.

Maristar210
06-01-2009, 11:38 PM
Um Jorski??

Aren't you tired of posting one sided bull **** on this matter?

Do you really think you have ANY credibility with anyone on this forum?

THe garbage you spew is so uncredible it makes me want to vomit. Keep posting, I need to lose the weight...

captain planet
06-02-2009, 12:13 AM
He does with me, but it doesn't matter y'all think I'm a tree huggin' wacko anyway.:rolleyes: I like the scientific articles that he posts. I have started to look into the newscientist.com website that he posts from time to time.

As they say, different strokes for different folks. Some of us just care about differently about things. If we were all the same, this would a pretty boring place. ;)

Jorski
06-02-2009, 12:42 AM
If she was a scientist and not a reporter, I think she would have more credibility

Jimn..to begin with, the writer is a scientific reporter with an extensive background in scientific research; her field was neurobiology. Futher she worked for 5 years for the UK Natural Environment Research Council as a (ready for this Jimn?) a SCIENTIST.

Honestly, have you posted even one item from a scientist on this thread? Nope. In fact, when I have posted many articles and studies from scientists you discount those anyhow; so what is the difference?

By the way, the original reference was from The Royal Society. They are the national academy of science for the U.K. and the Commonwealth.

If you would like to read about the problems with the oceans, you can read the work of many scientists. Here is the signed statement of the Interacademy Panel - a global network of international science academies (signed as of June 2009 and not "debunked" Carbon Footprint)...please see the list of science academies at the end of the article that support my position. I wonder just which scientific academies support the other side? Whatever that other side would be...



IAP STATEMENT ON OCEAN ACIDIFICATION

Headline messages

• Oceans play a critical role in the global carbon cycle by absorbing about a quarter of the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere
from human activities;

• The rapid increase in CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution has increased the acidity of the world’s oceans with
potentially profound consequences for marine plants and animals especially those that require calcium carbonate to grow
and survive, and other species that rely on these for food;

• At current emission rates models suggest that all coral reefs and polar ecosystems will be severely affected by 2050 or
potentially even earlier;

• Marine food supplies are likely to be reduced with significant implications for food production and security in regions
dependent on fish protein, and human health and wellbeing;

• Ocean acidification is irreversible on timescales of at least tens of thousands of years;

• Even with stabilisation of atmospheric CO2 at 450 ppm, ocean acidification will have profound impacts on many marine
systems. Large and rapid reductions of global CO2 emissions are needed globally by at least 50% by 2050.


1. CO2 and ocean chemistry

Over the past 200 years, the oceans have absorbed approximately a quarter of the CO2 produced from human activities.
This CO2 would otherwise have accumulated in the atmosphere leading to greater climate change. However, the absorption
of this CO2 has affected ocean chemistry and has caused the oceans (which are on average slightly alkaline) to become
more acidic. The average pH of oceanic surface waters has been lowered by 0.1 units since the pre-industrial period. This
represents a 30% increase in hydrogen ion activity. Hydrogen ions attack carbonate ions which are the building blocks
needed by many marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish, to produce their skeletons, shells and other hard structures.
This loss of carbonate ions produce lower saturation levels for the carbonate minerals, aragonite and calcite, which are
used in many shells and skeletons. Carbonate ion concentrations are now lower than at any other time during the last
800 000 years.
Global atmospheric CO2 concentrations are now at 387 ppm. If current trends in CO2 emissions continue, model projections
suggest that by mid-century CO2 concentrations will be more than double pre-industrial levels and the oceans will be more
acidic than they have been for tens of millions of years. The current rate of change is much more rapid than during any
event over the last 65 million years. These changes in ocean chemistry are irreversible for many thousands of years, and the
biological consequences could last much longer.


2. Environmental damage from ocean acidification

Ocean acidification impacts on marine life will depend on the rate and magnitude of changes in ocean chemistry and
biological responses. While the ocean chemistry changes are predictable with high certainty, our understanding of the
impacts is still developing. Nevertheless, there is strong evidence emerging for a range of biological effects and changes in
the marine biogeochemical processes that affect the carbon cycle. The long-term consequences of this are difficult to predict.
Impacts are already being observed in the polar and tropical regions. Coral calcification rates have declined in recent
decades, although attributing causes for these impacts among multiple drivers (acidification, warming, pollution, etc.) is a
challenge. Fundamental ecological ocean processes will be affected as many marine organisms depend directly or indirectly
on calcium carbonate saturated waters and are adapted to current levels of seawater pH for physiological and metabolic
processes such as calcification, growth and reproduction. The pH changes expected will exceed the seasonal and regional
variations currently experienced naturally.
June 2009


3. Ocean acidification is a global issue.

However, changes in ocean chemistry will be regionally variable with some regions
affected more rapidly than others. The high CO2 waters in polar and upwelling regions such as the eastern Pacific and
Bering Sea for example, will experience low pH more rapidly than other regions. Tropical waters, such as those around the
Great Barrier Reef will also experience rapid declines in the carbonate ions important for coral reef construction. According
to recent model projections almost all tropical and sub-tropical coral reefs were surrounded by waters favourable to coral
growth before the industrial revolution. If atmospheric CO2 is stabilized at 450 ppm, only a very small fraction (~8%) of
existing tropical and subtropical coral reefs will be surrounded by such water, and at 550 ppm, coral reefs may be dissolving
globally. Cold water corals are also vulnerable and are likely to be affected before they have even been fully explored. By
2100, it has been estimated that 70% will be in waters unfavourable for growth.
In the polar regions, model projections using current CO2 emission rates suggest that parts of the Southern Ocean will be
undersaturated for aragonite by 2050. Aragonite undersaturation is projected for 10% of Arctic waters by around 2020,
and by 2060, 80% of waters will be undersaturated for aragonite and calcite. This means the waters will be corrosive to
Arctic calcifiers such as pteropods, and bivalves such as clams, which play a key role in Arctic food webs.
The ocean chemistry changes projected will exceed the range of natural variability, which is likely to be too rapid for
many species to adapt to. Many coastal animals and groups of phytoplankton and zooplankton may be directly affected
with implications for fish, marine mammals and the other groups that depend on them for food. Increased CO2 may be
particularly stressful for organisms with high metabolic rates such as squid. The impacts of these changes on oceanic
ecosystems and the services they provide, for example in fisheries, coastal protection, tourism, carbon sequestration and
climate regulation, cannot yet be estimated accurately but they are potentially large.
Although some species may benefit, most are adapted to current conditions and the impacts on ocean biological diversity
and ecosystem functioning will likely be severe. Analysis of past events in Earth’s geologic history suggests that chemical
recovery will take tens of thousands of years – while the recovery of ecosystem function and biological diversity can take
much longer.


4. Mitigation

Ocean acidification is irreversible during our lifetimes and those of many generations to come. To minimise the risk of these
large-scale and long-term changes to the oceans the increase in atmospheric CO2 must be curbed by reducing emissions
from human activities.
Recent scenario studies have estimated that stabilisation of atmospheric CO2 concentrations at 550 ppm will produce
enough acidification to be disastrous for sensitive oceanic ecosystems in many parts of the world. Even at 450 ppm, more
than 10% of the world’s oceans will be impacted including large parts of the Southern, North Pacific, and Arctic oceans.
Mitigation approaches such as adding chemicals to counter the effects of acidification are likely to be expensive, only partly
effective and only at a very local scale, and may pose additional unanticipated risks to the marine environment. There has
been very little research on the feasibility and impacts of these approaches. Substantial research is needed before these
techniques could be applied.


5. Conclusions and recommendations

Ocean acidification is a direct consequence of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. To avoid substantial damage to
ocean ecosystems, deep and rapid reductions of global CO2 emissions by at least 50% by 2050, and much more thereafter
are needed.

We, the academies of science working through the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP), call on world leaders to:
• Acknowledge that ocean acidification is a direct and real consequence of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, is
already having an effect at current concentrations, and is likely to cause grave harm to important marine ecosystems as
CO2 concentrations reach 450 ppm and above;
• Recognise that reducing the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere is the only practicable solution to mitigating ocean
acidification;
• Within the context of the UNFCCC negotiations in the run up to Copenhagen 2009, recognise the direct threats posed
by increasing atmospheric CO2 emissions to the oceans and therefore society, and take action to mitigate this threat;
• Implement action to reduce global CO2 emissions by at least 50% of 1990 levels by 2050 and continue to reduce them
thereafter;
• Reinvigorate action to reduce stressors, such as overfishing and pollution, on marine ecosystems to increase resilience to
ocean acidification.

The following academies have endorsed this statement.
June 2009
• TWAS, the academy of sciences for the developing world
• Albanian Academy of Sciences
• National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural
Sciences, Argentina
• Australian Academy of Science
• Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
• The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
• Brazilian Academy of Sciences
• Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
• Cameroon Academy of Sciences
• RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences
of Canada
• Academia Chilena de Ciencias
• Chinese Academy of Sciences
• Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural
Sciences
• Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
• Cuban Academy of Sciences
• Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
• Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
• Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
• Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
• The Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science
and Letters
• Académie des Sciences, France
• Georgian Academy of Sciences
• Union der Deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften
• Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina
• The Academy of Athens
• Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales
de Guatemala
• Indian National Science Academy
• Indonesian Academy of Sciences
• Academy of Sciences of the Islamic
Republic of Iran
• Royal Irish Academy
• Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
• Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei
• Science Council of Japan
• Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
• Islamic World Academy of Sciences
• African Academy of Sciences
• Kenya National Academy of Sciences
• The Korean Academy of Science and Technology
• Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
• National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
• Akademi Sains Malaysia
• Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
• Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
• Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
• The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
• Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
• Nigerian Academy of Sciences
• Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
• Pakistan Academy of Sciences
• Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
• Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
• Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa
• Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
• Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
• Slovak Academy of Sciences
• Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
• Academy of Science of South Africa
• Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
of Spain
• National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
• Sudanese National Academy of Science
• Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
• Academia Sinica, Taiwan, China
• Tanzania Academy of Sciences
• The Caribbean Academy of Sciences
• Turkish Academy of Sciences
• The Uganda National Academy of Sciences
• The Royal Society, UK
• US National Academy of Sciences
• Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales
de Venezuela
• Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

Jorski
06-02-2009, 12:45 AM
Oh and umm, Maristar?

Just what have you contributed to this thread other than name calling? Do YOU really think that YOU have credibility? Have you ever been able to provide any scientific literature or evidence to support YOUR position?

That would be a giant NO.

6ballsisall
06-02-2009, 01:09 AM
So how do recycle my impeller? Can someone tell me how to replace my impeller too?:rolleyes:

Jesus_Freak
06-05-2009, 01:13 PM
Well, there's your problem! I don't have Excel '07.

It is listed in the "help" files for Excel '97, but I cannot get it to work either. I assume some other add-in is needed to make it work. Oh well...sorry about that.

JimN
06-05-2009, 01:45 PM
It is listed in the "help" files for Excel '97, but I cannot get it to work either. I assume some other add-in is needed to make it work. Oh well...sorry about that.

I feel so empty.

TX.X-30 fan
06-05-2009, 06:07 PM
I feel so empty.




JimN are you keeping excel 97 because the Govt. has all the newer versions equiped with high-tech spyware. :D

6ballsisall
06-05-2009, 06:17 PM
JimN are you keeping excel 97 because the Govt. has all the newer versions equiped with high-tech spyware. :D

Lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Sodar
06-05-2009, 06:19 PM
Can anyone use this cut and paste function?

JimN
06-05-2009, 06:46 PM
JimN are you keeping excel 97 because the Govt. has all the newer versions equiped with high-tech spyware. :D

As opposed to low tech spyware? No, I just don't want to pay Microsoft's price, although I should try Open Office or take another class, so I can get the student price.

TX.X-30 fan
06-06-2009, 12:47 PM
As opposed to low tech spyware? No, I just don't want to pay Microsoft's price, although I should try Open Office or take another class, so I can get the student price.




I know of a very nice gentleman that never pays for software and can be very generous. :D

JimN
06-06-2009, 03:28 PM
Lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

What's so funny about that? My tin foil hat is one of the most sensitive in my area.

Craig
06-08-2009, 03:59 PM
Saw this comic today and it made me think of this thread...

:uglyhamme:

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd051809s.gif

Jesus_Freak
06-09-2009, 01:50 PM
Saw this comic today and it made me think of this thread...

:uglyhamme:


With a correlation coefficient of 56%, of course grandma needs to wear her hat.

Man, that was great! Thank you.