Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Rogue Ssv]

The one I just made meaning at 4pm or 11am?

 

[Zrow]

I'm gonna say that Rogue's post (minus the fuel cell bit) is probably exactly what most people think about global warming.

 

[Famine]

The one I just made meaning at 4pm or 11am?

Both (though it's 4pm and 9pm for me). To help you out, gloss over any post by DeLorean Brown - it'll cut your read time in half and not significantly impinge on what you can learn from the thread.


And I agree with Zrow.

 

[Kylehnat]

And I oppose fuel cells because we'll just waste as much if not more energhy converting water to hydrogen and manufacturing fuel cell parts,
HYBRIDS PEOPLE!!!!!!!!

Hydrogen can, in fact, be created in a way that doesn't consume more energy than the hydrogen is worth. We've known forever that electrolyzing water is not the way to go, yet people still fixate on this method for some reason. High-pressure membrane processes have been developed that basically squeeze water apart and then separate the hydrogen from the oxygen. It's energetically favorable, but the membranes are horribly expensive and fragile. Steam-reforming of methane is also excellent for making hydrogen, though it still relies on fossil fuel. Hydrogen can even be produced through coal gasification.

Point: there's more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[Joey D]

Hybrids are only giving people the illusion they are helping, really cars don't contribute all that much to the pollution. Think about the factories, airplanes, ships, etc that contribute more and more. A jet liner burns thousands of pounds of fuel, a gallon of the fuel I burn (unleaded regular) is something like 6.2 pounds, so I only burn about a 100 pounds of fuel on a full tank.

 

[Rogue Ssv]

''Hydrogen can, in fact, be created in a way that doesn't consume more energy than the hydrogen is worth. We've known forever that electrolyzing water is not the way to go, yet people still fixate on this method for some reason. High-pressure membrane processes have been developed that basically squeeze water apart and then separate the hydrogen from the oxygen. It's energetically favorable, but the membranes are horribly expensive and fragile. Steam-reforming of methane is also excellent for making hydrogen, though it still relies on fossil fuel. Hydrogen can even be produced through coal gasification.

Point: there's more than one way to skin a cat.''

ooh, interesting. How come I couldnt find any of this on Google for my science fair project?

@BlazinXtreme: I knew that, but cars are still a pretty big part of the pollution and or global warming issue, arent they?

 

[Zrow]

@BlazinXtreme: I knew that, but cars are still a pretty big part of the pollution and or global warming issue, arent they?

Allegedly. The argument is usually cars >>> CO2 >>> greenhouses gases >>> global warming.

 

[Danoff]

@BlazinXtreme: I knew that, but cars are still a pretty big part of the pollution and or global warming issue, arent they?

Seriously, read the thread. We've already covered this.

Here's the short version: We don't know if global warming is happening. If it is, we aren't sure why and whether we have anything to do with it.

 

[Famine]

@BlazinXtreme: I knew that, but cars are still a pretty big part of the pollution and or global warming issue, arent they?

Even IF you ascribe to the theory that mankind causes global warming through our carbon dioxide emissions (which account for 3% of global carbon dioxide emissions), private transport contributes such a small fraction to our emissions that you could make a reasonable case for saying that it wouldn't make a jot of difference if every car on Earth were a 10mpg SUV or a "100mpg" hybrid.

 

[GT4_Rule]

Well, obviously, we cant be sure that it is happening just because we have 500 somewhat years of data - in earth 100,000 years is nothing. So we will probably never know whether if Global Warming was ever happening, assuming that we humans will be extinct in another 100,000 years.

Dont ask me where I got the number 100,000 from, I was just pluggin it in....

But it still helps to act environmentally-friendly in a way that doesnt cost you an arm and a leg.

 

[Joey D]

According to Mr. Robert Lutz

"If you put cement in the spark plugs of every car, truck, and SUV's in the world you'd only cut 4 tenth's of one percent."

-MPH Magazine May 2006

 

[Zrow]

Well, obviously, we cant be sure that it is happening just because we have 500 somewhat years of data - in earth 100,000 years is nothing. So we will probably never know whether if Global Warming was ever happening, assuming that we humans will be extinct in another 100,000 years.

Why will humans be extinct in 100,000 years?

 

[Joey D]

Not extinct but on our way to evolving into something else.

 

[Rogue Ssv]

Aaaand Im back, to the despair of the general public.

@Famine:A 100mpg hybrid? Is that even possible?
But it is happening and we are not causing it anymore, but what we did 50 years ago is still damaging us.

 

[Joey D]

@Famine:A 100mpg hybrid? Is that even possible?

Read up on the new Prius, they are saying it will be close to that.

 

[GT4_Rule]

Read up on the new Prius, they are saying it will be close to that.

Thats right.

Umm, as for the "humans extinct in 100,000 years", I believe I have explained why I used the number 100,000 in my post in small letters. Or have I turned blind suddenly?

 

[Zrow]

Hah, um, if you want to call that "explaining", sure. I was more interested in the "extinct" part anyway.

 

[Rogue Ssv]

OOOH 100mpg....

 

[Joey D]

Yes that's what you said, 100 miles to one gallon of gas. Making the car run for about 1200 miles before having to be filled up.

 

[niky]

The Prius isn't that close. At least not for places where you actually have to use the heater or airconditioner. I've been reading reviews of the 06', and the mileage they get is still comparable to 1.1 and 1.3 liter gas cars driven in a similar manner.

You want 100mpg, you'll need a small two or three cylinder diesel and a streamliner body... Wait, Audi actually made a 100mpg car once... but it was unsafe (tires too thin, I think) and unsellable.

Errh... back on track... For a true 100mpg car, ditch the huge battery packs, put in a moderate sized one to restart the engine after it's deactivated at stoplights... put in a 1000cc (or smaller) turbodiesel and make the car as smooth as Koenigsegg's bald noggin and as light as a feather... carbon fiber would be nice, but plastics will do. Should do 100mpg easy.

 

[Kylehnat]

Just find a 100 mile-long hill 👍

 

[Danoff]

WARMEST APRIL EVER!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WEATHER/05/17/warm.april.ap/index.html

...for the US. The world? No, 7th place. For Alaska? Below average.

(btw: looks like gas prices have leveled off Zardoz. Not so much fun posting pictures of prices that don't change.)

 

[FoolKiller]

WARMEST APRIL EVER!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WEATHER/05/17/warm.april.ap/index.html

It rambled on about some droughts and a warm April, yet the reporter seems to not conclude properly considering that I am now in my second week of cold-ass May. I believe my grandmother called it a wheat winter or something like that.

I still have some plants that can't be set outside because the temperature won't stay above 50 degrees. Should I be wearing sweaters and jackets during the "heat" of the day this time of year?

This is definitely a case of global cooling and we need find the culprits and stop them now. My test results are only preliminary but I think that it is being caused by the sun's rays being blocked due to a hybrid car induced smug cloud.

 

[Kylehnat]

As i recall, our April wasn't much different than "normal". I think we were a degree or two above the "average" temperature for much of the month, but that's happened before, and to me, doesn't foreshadow the apocalypse. Nevermind the fact that for most of January, February, and March, our temps were below normal.

 

[Swift]

Heh heh, like it matters at ALL from month to month. That of course, is the funny part of the article.

 

[Danoff]

World was hotter than it is now somewhere between 400 and 1000 years ago:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/22/global.warming.ap/index.html

I like this part:

Overall, the panel agreed that the warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last 1,000 years, though relatively warm conditions persisted around the year 1000, followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850.

Oh I see. During interglacial periods, the temperature goes up. And last time we were in between ice ages, it went up to these levels? Higher perhaps? But between 1500 and 1850 we were in a minor ice age, so obviously the temperature had to go up since 1850.

The Earth is 4,500,000,000 years old. And only 1,000 years ago (when we weren't burning fossil fuels) it was hotter than it is now.

 

[FoolKiller]

World was hotter than it is now somewhere between 400 and 1000 years ago:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/22/global.warming.ap/index.html

From the way you presented this I was expecting a completely different article, but after reading it found out that they are trying to say global warming is our fault despite overlapping dates, admitted lack of confidence in data, and basing it on a study that has been shown to be invalid because they have single measurements that are expected to represent the avrega climate of the entire planet for a year or more. If I showed these guys a picture of Antartica and said, "This is Earth," do you think that they would assume that we are in an ice age?

Examples of problems:
1) Overall, the panel agreed that the warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last 1,000 years, though relatively warm conditions persisted around the year 1000, followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850.

The scientists said they had less confidence in the evidence of temperatures before 1600. But they considered it reliable enough to conclude there were sharp spikes in carbon dioxide and methane, the two major "greenhouse" gases blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years.

So we had much warmer weather 1,000 years ago (even though they actually say 2,000 years at one point then say the year 1,000. Fuzzy math.) and then a "little ice age" but the climate has been stable for 12,000 years? Which is it? Fluctuations or stable?

2) Between 1 A.D. and 1850, volcanic eruptions and solar fluctuations were the main causes of changes in greenhouse gas levels. But those temperature changes "were much less pronounced than the warming due to greenhouse gas" levels by pollution since the mid-19th century, it said.
So it can happen naturally? Did they bother comparing todays volcanic activity and solar fluctuations? If they did they forgot to mention it. Why would you either ignore a variable or hide it? BAD science or politics.

Who are these idiots?

The National Academy of Sciences is a private organization chartered by Congress to advise the government of scientific matters.

That explains it. Underpaid government lackies trying to do the job of real professionals.

 

[Zrow]

My test results are only preliminary but I think that it is being caused by the sun's rays being blocked due to a hybrid car induced smug cloud.

Yes, the world is absolutely going to be hit very soon by Global Laming...


Anyone watch Al Gore's movie?

 

[Danoff]

From the way you presented this I was expecting a completely different article

I took what few facts I could find and drew my own conclusions.

 

[FoolKiller]

Anyone watch Al Gore's movie?

No. My brother tried to get me to go last night and I told him I had no plans of funding propaganda.

So, is he completely serial?

I took what few facts I could find and drew my own conclusions

I'm surprised you found facts.