Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
On Mar 27, 9:43 am, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Al Gore's worst predictions are absolutely correct, and that *at projected rates of increase* in CO2 levels, a major catastrophy looms on the horizon about 50-100 years from now. Is there any reason to believe that CO2 will actually increase at his projected rates? Clearly his model depends entirely upon a world which continues to exploit fossil fuels as its primary source of energy. But the fact is that the world is already seeking alternatives to fossil fuels for a variety of reasons, both socio-political and environmental. Geothermal, wind, solar and hydrogen are all currently being developed to replace hydrocarbon-based fossil fuels, with it being entirely likely that within a 50 year period most developed nations will no longer depend upon coal and oil to meet their energy demands. It is possible that some of this development is in response to cries of catastrophic Global Climate Change in our future. But equally important is the view that the world will run out of oil, so humanity is seeking alternatives. A world which does not rely upon the exploitation of oil reserves in highly-volatile regions where the West is not welcome will be not only cleaner, having less negative impact upon the environment, but also safer as we will have no reason to exploit those middle-eastern oil reserves. But just as important and significant is that as we shift away from hydrocarbon-based fuels, the impact of man-made CO2 will become virtually meaningless. And this is the direction in which we are already heading -- making Al Gore's demands of restricting, regulating and taxing CO2 emissions in order to reduce them, utterly redundant an unnecessary. you might take a look at the amount of R&D money going to alturnative energy. the tiny amount is not going to amount to jack in time to keep the bottom 50% of the scale alive. so folks are gonna start burning anything to keep warm. plastic, tires, rubber, peat, lowgrade coal, and anything else you could imagine. think what Boston could look like on a bad winter. |
#2
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
"Two meter troll" wrote in message oups.com... you might take a look at the amount of R&D money going to alturnative energy. the tiny amount is not going to amount to jack in time to keep the bottom 50% of the scale alive. so folks are gonna start burning anything to keep warm. plastic, tires, rubber, peat, lowgrade coal, and anything else you could imagine. think what Boston could look like on a bad winter. And 50 years ago, how much was being spent on the development of hydrogen fuel cells? We know immensely more now than we did then -- I have every reason to expect that we will know exponentially more 50 years from now than we did then. Particularly when you take into account that the average desktop (or even laptop) computer today is more powerful than that which was possessed by even the largest financial corporations fifty years ago. Technology is growing so fast today that it's virtually impossible to keep up with it. 50 years ago, you could buy a color television and it wouldn't be obsolete for at least another 20 years. And as our technology improves -- particularly in the area of computers -- other advances that we cannot even imagine today will suddenly appear. Darwin Saves! Evolve or Perish! |
#3
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
On Mar 27, 12:33 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
"Two meter troll" wrote in ooglegroups.com... you might take a look at the amount of R&D money going to alturnative energy. the tiny amount is not going to amount to jack in time to keep the bottom 50% of the scale alive. so folks are gonna start burning anything to keep warm. plastic, tires, rubber, peat, lowgrade coal, and anything else you could imagine. think what Boston could look like on a bad winter. And 50 years ago, how much was being spent on the development of hydrogen fuel cells? We know immensely more now than we did then -- I have every reason to expect that we will know exponentially more 50 years from now than we did then. Particularly when you take into account that the average desktop (or even laptop) computer today is more powerful than that which was possessed by even the largest financial corporations fifty years ago. Technology is growing so fast today that it's virtually impossible to keep up with it. 50 years ago, you could buy a color television and it wouldn't be obsolete for at least another 20 years. And as our technology improves -- particularly in the area of computers -- other advances that we cannot even imagine today will suddenly appear. Darwin Saves! Evolve or Perish! yep and its burning oil in direct proportion; i am not so sure we are going to have 50 more years before conditions become unstopable. I dont argue that the models are wrong IMO they likely are; my argument is can we afford to make a bet at this point. since the effect is exponentual; our margen for error is very slim; I like to stack the odds in my favor. I think of it as an at sea problem; I cannot breathe water so my safe place is my boat. if my boat is burning either i put the fire out or i jump into the sea and die. this is what we have with GW; the question is no longer if its happening it is that it is happening and what do we do to fix it. |
#4
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
"Two meter troll" wrote in message oups.com... On Mar 27, 12:33 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote: And 50 years ago, how much was being spent on the development of hydrogen fuel cells? We know immensely more now than we did then -- I have every reason to expect that we will know exponentially more 50 years from now than we did then. Particularly when you take into account that the average desktop (or even laptop) computer today is more powerful than that which was possessed by even the largest financial corporations fifty years ago. Technology is growing so fast today that it's virtually impossible to keep up with it. 50 years ago, you could buy a color television and it wouldn't be obsolete for at least another 20 years. And as our technology improves -- particularly in the area of computers -- other advances that we cannot even imagine today will suddenly appear. Darwin Saves! Evolve or Perish! yep and its burning oil in direct proportion; i am not so sure we are going to have 50 more years before conditions become unstopable. I dont argue that the models are wrong IMO they likely are; my argument is can we afford to make a bet at this point. since the effect is exponentual; our margen for error is very slim; I like to stack the odds in my favor. I think of it as an at sea problem; I cannot breathe water so my safe place is my boat. if my boat is burning either i put the fire out or i jump into the sea and die. this is what we have with GW; the question is no longer if its happening it is that it is happening and what do we do to fix it. Some are convinced that GW is happening and we are the primary cause; some are convinced that GW is happening and we are an ancillary cause; some are convinced that GW isn't happening at all. Even if we assume the worst, is it necessary for us to act TODAY, on imperfect data, promoting impossible goals with unforeseeable consequences, or would it be better to continue developing alternative energy sources while continuing to study GW for several more years and act upon better, more long-term data? I suggest that the latter is wiser than the former. |
#5
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
In article ,
KLC Lewis wrote: Some are convinced that GW is happening and we are the primary cause; some are convinced that GW is happening and we are an ancillary cause; some are convinced that GW isn't happening at all. Even if we assume the worst, is it necessary for us to act TODAY, on imperfect data, promoting impossible goals with unforeseeable consequences, or would it be better to continue developing alternative energy sources while continuing to study GW for several more years and act upon better, more long-term data? I suggest that the latter is wiser than the former. Why not just act responsibly... increase the CAFE standards. Seems to me that 4 percent improvement in new car mileage per year for the next several years would do more than just about everything else to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gasses, all the while being an example to other countries and perhaps bringing back the US auto industry. Unfortunately, the big car companies fight this tooth and nail and instead promote ethanol which will, at best, have minimal effect on our consuption of fossil fuel. -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
#6
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... Why not just act responsibly... increase the CAFE standards. Seems to me that 4 percent improvement in new car mileage per year for the next several years would do more than just about everything else to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gasses, all the while being an example to other countries and perhaps bringing back the US auto industry. Unfortunately, the big car companies fight this tooth and nail and instead promote ethanol which will, at best, have minimal effect on our consuption of fossil fuel. -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com That's a good idea. I'll take care of it tomorrow. First thing. I promise. |
#7
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
In article ,
KLC Lewis wrote: "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... Why not just act responsibly... increase the CAFE standards. Seems to me that 4 percent improvement in new car mileage per year for the next several years would do more than just about everything else to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gasses, all the while being an example to other countries and perhaps bringing back the US auto industry. Unfortunately, the big car companies fight this tooth and nail and instead promote ethanol which will, at best, have minimal effect on our consuption of fossil fuel. -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com That's a good idea. I'll take care of it tomorrow. First thing. I promise. Cool. Now all we have to do is work on Darfur. g -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
#8
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
On Mar 27, 2:07 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
"Two meter troll" wrote in ooglegroups.com... On Mar 27, 12:33 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote: And 50 years ago, how much was being spent on the development of hydrogen fuel cells? We know immensely more now than we did then -- I have every reason to expect that we will know exponentially more 50 years from now than we did then. Particularly when you take into account that the average desktop (or even laptop) computer today is more powerful than that which was possessed by even the largest financial corporations fifty years ago. Technology is growing so fast today that it's virtually impossible to keep up with it. 50 years ago, you could buy a color television and it wouldn't be obsolete for at least another 20 years. And as our technology improves -- particularly in the area of computers -- other advances that we cannot even imagine today will suddenly appear. Darwin Saves! Evolve or Perish! yep and its burning oil in direct proportion; i am not so sure we are going to have 50 more years before conditions become unstopable. I dont argue that the models are wrong IMO they likely are; my argument is can we afford to make a bet at this point. since the effect is exponentual; our margen for error is very slim; I like to stack the odds in my favor. I think of it as an at sea problem; I cannot breathe water so my safe place is my boat. if my boat is burning either i put the fire out or i jump into the sea and die. this is what we have with GW; the question is no longer if its happening it is that it is happening and what do we do to fix it. Some are convinced that GW is happening and we are the primary cause; some are convinced that GW is happening and we are an ancillary cause; some are convinced that GW isn't happening at all. Even if we assume the worst, is it necessary for us to act TODAY, on imperfect data, promoting impossible goals with unforeseeable consequences, or would it be better to continue developing alternative energy sources while continuing to study GW for several more years and act upon better, more long-term data? I suggest that the latter is wiser than the former. respectfully the Some are a majority; that it is happening. the few who are not convinced are by and large not doing sciance in the field. we are a huge part of the cause looking at the data nothing else has the co2 and methane outputs of human industry and transportation. We have a debt we best start paying it now because we are going to be paying intrest for a long while. so yes starting today is better than letting the debt get bigger. How much long-term Data do you need we have almost 500 years of observed data that can be varified and another thousand in unvarified observation. and then we have Ice core data back 60.000 years. how much longer do you want to wait? I have kids and soon will have grand kids I figure taking care of this now means my grand kids have a chance. |
#9
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
On Mar 27, 2:45 pm, "Two meter troll" wrote:
On Mar 27, 2:07 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote: "Two meter troll" wrote in ooglegroups.com... On Mar 27, 12:33 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote: And 50 years ago, how much was being spent on the development of hydrogen fuel cells? We know immensely more now than we did then -- I have every reason to expect that we will know exponentially more 50 years from now than we did then. Particularly when you take into account that the average desktop (or even laptop) computer today is more powerful than that which was possessed by even the largest financial corporations fifty years ago. Technology is growing so fast today that it's virtually impossible to keep up with it. 50 years ago, you could buy a color television and it wouldn't be obsolete for at least another 20 years. And as our technology improves -- particularly in the area of computers -- other advances that we cannot even imagine today will suddenly appear. Darwin Saves! Evolve or Perish! yep and its burning oil in direct proportion; i am not so sure we are going to have 50 more years before conditions become unstopable. I dont argue that the models are wrong IMO they likely are; my argument is can we afford to make a bet at this point. since the effect is exponentual; our margen for error is very slim; I like to stack the odds in my favor. I think of it as an at sea problem; I cannot breathe water so my safe place is my boat. if my boat is burning either i put the fire out or i jump into the sea and die. this is what we have with GW; the question is no longer if its happening it is that it is happening and what do we do to fix it. Some are convinced that GW is happening and we are the primary cause; some are convinced that GW is happening and we are an ancillary cause; some are convinced that GW isn't happening at all. Even if we assume the worst, is it necessary for us to act TODAY, on imperfect data, promoting impossible goals with unforeseeable consequences, or would it be better to continue developing alternative energy sources while continuing to study GW for several more years and act upon better, more long-term data? I suggest that the latter is wiser than the former. respectfully the Some are a majority; that it is happening. the few who are not convinced are by and large not doing sciance in the field. we are a huge part of the cause looking at the data nothing else has the co2 and methane outputs of human industry and transportation. We have a debt we best start paying it now because we are going to be paying intrest for a long while. so yes starting today is better than letting the debt get bigger. How much long-term Data do you need we have almost 500 years of observed data that can be varified and another thousand in unvarified observation. and then we have Ice core data back 60.000 years. how much longer do you want to wait? I have kids and soon will have grand kids I figure taking care of this now means my grand kids have a chance. so in addendome here are a few searches; i figure if its gonna stay factual i will provide the whole data set and not single out any spacific sites. enjoy. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...r=&btnG=Search http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...lobal+CO2+emis... http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...l+ocean+temper... http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...istoric+global... http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...istoric+global... http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...oric+global+wa... http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...Atmospheric+ch... http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...Atmospheric+ch... http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...Atmospheric+ch... http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...Atmospheric+ch... I love research |
#10
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
Two meter troll wrote:
respectfully the Some are a majority; that it is happening. the few who are not convinced are by and large not doing sciance in the field. we are a huge part of the cause looking at the data nothing else has the co2 and methane outputs of human industry and transportation. We have a debt we best start paying it now because we are going to be paying intrest for a long while. so yes starting today is better than letting the debt get bigger. How much long-term Data do you need we have almost 500 years of observed data that can be varified and another thousand in unvarified observation. and then we have Ice core data back 60.000 years. how much longer do you want to wait? I have kids and soon will have grand kids I figure taking care of this now means my grand kids have a chance. No problem! There is data going back millions of years. That data indicates that we are in a typical global warming cycle that is not much different than the last seven cycles. In fact, its not as rapid as three of the cycles. In relation to the CO2 levels in the ice cores, there is a measurement problem. The CO2 levels taken from the cores are raw levels and do not allow for any outgasing of CO2 for the thousands of years the ice existed. Outgasing will reduce the amounts in the ice and will partially mask the actual amount of atmospheric CO2 at the time of the ice was formed. (If you leave an open can of sparkling water, the CO2 will eventually escape leaving a can of flat water.) So if we can't prove that CO2 levels are at a historic high now (which they aren't anyway) and the temperature rise in consistent with previous trends, where does that leave global warming? Global warming is big business. Its not about developing alternative energy sources. People are making a lot of money doing research and others are being publicly funded to develop countermeasures to "stop global warming". So the battle cry is to shout down anyone who threatens that money source. if that money were spent on developing alternative energy sources to coal/oil/natgas, we'd all be a lot better off. The BBC has a special on a few weeks ago where a number of scientists were interviewed. Though not necessarily addressing the above points, they presented quite a bit of information that contradicts some of the theories about global warming. I don't have a link for the video, but if someone can provide one, it would make for an interesting discussion. Anyone my age or older certainly can remember the scare of 40 years ago or so when it was predicted that all the CO2 man was putting into the atmosphere would thrust the earth into an ice age by 2010. Maybe the electron spin on carbon atoms reversed itself. Bad electrons!! |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
So where is...................... | General | |||
Hurricane Storage Asho A Surveyors View | Cruising | |||
Metric readout on Humminbird Wide View | Electronics | |||
Can We STOP IT??? | ASA |