Global Warming?
- Started
- Last post
- 223 Responses
- lowimpakt0
the fall in so called "green" car sales is because there is a fall in all car sales.
in case you hadn't noticed the whole auto industry is a bit fucked at the moment.
- "GM and Chrysler warn of imminent bankruptcy"
http://www.businessw…lowimpakt
- "GM and Chrysler warn of imminent bankruptcy"
- designbot0
As I have said in other posts, as far as automoblies go, so far every alternative is a joke. How do you think they are producing these automoblies? Elelctric/Hydrogen/solar, you name it, these cars take a huge ammount of resources (burning fossil fuels which = carbon pollution) just to manufacture. It does not do anyone any good if your EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) is no good! if a automobile manufacturing plant could produce these alternatives while the entire plant is running off solar or another alternative energy, then you might really be onto something (though this in istelf would take a huge ammount of energy/resources and emit loads of carbon). I find it interesting that with the Hydrogen car for example, in order to remove the Hydrogen from the water to be use for these cars, they have to heat up the water using fossil fuels! So manufacturing the car uses fossil fuels, and creating the fuel...also uses fossil fuels. Where I am pretty excited about what alternatives might come from this suppsosed "crisis" of global warming we have on our hands, I think there are lots of people being exploited over this whole issue. Suckered in if you will, to these "green" intiatives that are as harmful to the environment as the thing they are supposed to be replacing.
Kwesij in your above post you point out the supposed tactics of the "Big Oil" companies to try and spread disinformation and propaganda against global warming by basically having a hand in the climate change studies. Didn't watch the video yet so I can't attest to it being true or false, but I would argue the same is being done on the other side. I know for sure (witnesses this first hand) that marketing strategies are being formulated everyday to capitalize on peoples irrational fear of global warming, by introducing "green" products, when the details themself are shady. Cautious is a good state to be in, but don't think that there aren't just as many people on the other side waiting to spread propaganda and take advantage of your fear in every way possible.
- Exactly, it costs more to produce the little sad f*ckers than it's worth.********
- One failed policy after another, keep voting Republican!********
- I read an article about a toyota factory in japan that is run 43% on renewable energy. so you are ignorant.DrBombay
- http://www.csmonitor…DrBombay
- of course it cost more. its new. ex. before computers was way more expensive then today. ta-tah.akrokdesign
- Exactly, it costs more to produce the little sad f*ckers than it's worth.
- lowimpakt0
deisgnbot. in simple/designery terms can you describe the process of innovation as you see it? what are they key technical, financial, and sociciological characteristics and conditions required to make it happen.
I'll give you example you can start with - the innovative transition from the horse and cart to the internal cumbustion engine.
ok, go!
- I understand your point here. The problem is, in this case, I don't think it's just the struggle with transition. with the current "innovations" I think we will end up in the same predicament years down the road that we are in now.designbot
- "innovations" I think we will end up in the same predicament years down the road that we are in now.designbot
- but you dont believe people's habits caused anything...DrBombay
- TheBlueOne0
Please take a look a Brazil. Their autos run on three different fuels that the driver picks depending on what's cheaper on any given day. Total free market solution for end-user i.e the driver.
And how did this happen? Goveernment mandated the industry to change.
No, but here in America the auto manufacturers, all you know "free market" let the consumer chose um, gee...petroleum gas, petroleum gas or..um...petroleum gas with giant gas-guzzling, pollution emittig engines at that.
Yippee free market! Yippee pollution!
And I love with way the Big Three & Big Oil present corn based ethanol as the only solution here in the US when pressed..because it' fucking FAIL before it lunches, so they use this stupid straw man to justify the continued reliance on petroleum.
- what are the three fuels? gasoline, ethanol...and something else?designbot
- Natural Gas.
http://www.msnbc.msn…TheBlueOne - Great idea. All new cars should be either flex-fuel or plug-in hybrids.joeth
- ********0
Obama "green" plan would destroy 900,000 net jobs
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBD…Claims that such "investments" will create five million jobs are false. It's likely more jobs will be killed than created due to higher costs and increased inefficiency of the U.S. economy. A recent report from the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation found that limiting CO2 emissions under recent proposed legislation would destroy 900,000 net jobs.
Spending money on projects where costs exceed benefits simply to "create jobs" is a bad idea. Taking capital from productive uses and redeploying it to politically popular but nonproductive uses lowers productivity by paying those with "green jobs" more than their output is worth. It's not welfare, it's "greenfare."
- 900,000!********
- Stop watching Fox News!********
- bull.akrokdesign
- Heritage Foundation. 'nuf said.TheBlueOne
- 900,000!
- lowimpakt0
why not make it a million. or 2 million? sure we're all guessing here.
- joeth0
nice site:
http://www.thisisreality.org/#/?…- Clean Coal Technology sponsored by: JazX********
- a good listen:
http://www.electricp…TheBlueOne
- Clean Coal Technology sponsored by: JazX
- ukit0
Wow. Not to reopen the can of worms, but this article is terrifying.
- pfft. All those eggheads merely have to to email jazx and find out that everything is fine.TheBlueOne
- ukit0
At a high-level academic conference on global warming at Exeter University this summer, climate scientist Kevin Anderson stood before his expert audience and contemplated a strange feeling. He wanted to be wrong. Many of those in the room who knew what he was about to say felt the same. His conclusions had already caused a stir in scientific and political circles. Even committed green campaigners said the implications left them terrified.
Anderson, an expert at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at Manchester University, was about to send the gloomiest dispatch yet from the frontline of the war against climate change.
Despite the political rhetoric, the scientific warnings, the media headlines and the corporate promises, he would say, carbon emissions were soaring way out of control - far above even the bleak scenarios considered by last year's report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Stern review. The battle against dangerous climate change had been lost, and the world needed to prepare for things to get very, very bad.
"As an academic I wanted to be told that it was a very good piece of work and that the conclusions were sound," Anderson said. "But as a human being I desperately wanted someone to point out a mistake, and to tell me we had got it completely wrong."
Nobody did. The cream of the UK climate science community sat in stunned silence as Anderson pointed out that carbon emissions since 2000 have risen much faster than anyone thought possible, driven mainly by the coal-fuelled economic boom in the developing world. So much extra pollution is being pumped out, he said, that most of the climate targets debated by politicians and campaigners are fanciful at best, and "dangerously misguided" at worst.
In the jargon used to count the steady accumulation of carbon dioxide in the Earth's thin layer of atmosphere, he said it was "improbable" that levels could now be restricted to 650 parts per million (ppm).
The CO2 level is currently over 380ppm, up from 280ppm at the time of the industrial revolution, and it rises by more than 2ppm each year. The government's official position is that the world should aim to cap this rise at 450ppm.
The science is fuzzy, but experts say that could offer an even-money chance of limiting the eventual temperature rise above pre-industrial times to 2C, which the EU defines as dangerous. (We have had 0.7C of that already and an estimated extra 0.5C is guaranteed because of emissions to date.)
The graphs on the large screens behind Anderson's head at Exeter told a different story. Line after line, representing the fumes that belch from chimneys, exhausts and jet engines, that should have bent in a rapid curve towards the ground, were heading for the ceiling instead.
At 650ppm, the same fuzzy science says the world would face a catastrophic 4C average rise. And even that bleak future, Anderson said, could only be achieved if rich countries adopted "draconian emission reductions within a decade". Only an unprecedented "planned economic recession" might be enough. The current financial woes would not come close.
- gmachadodesign0
Despite skepticism over climate change, I believe that the time for start acting is now:
Type for Change
http://www.facebook.com/group.ph…
- designbot0
Now this is very interesting....I listened to a scientist talk about this a few days ago:
"Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate."
- ever been to LA? if more and more cars are being driven that is what you have to look forward to everywhere.DrBombay
- TheBlueOne0
Oh, you've got to be kidding me?
- ********0
What's wrong with clean-burning coal, TBO?
- DrBombay0
shut up you fucking fake piece of argumentative shit.
- designbot0
Just wanted to point out how freezing it has been here in Colorado.
Yesterday we broke a record low of around -10.....hasn't been that cold since 1951.
I know we aren't the only ones....who else is experiencing colder than usual temps?
- DrBombay0
12 degrees lower than normal here today. Technically it isn't even winter yet. Are you going to use this as a point why global warming is a farce or something?
- ukit0
Global warming doesn't mean it gets warmer and warmer constantly. There are fluctuations.
I think I read somewhere that even though this year happened to be cooler than the last one, this would be an incredibly warm year by the standards of 100 years ago.
- Fluctuations is precisely the reason I have trouble believing much of what I hear on Global Warming.designbot
- Why? Is it too hard to believe that both can be true?ukit
- I think it's all a natural cycle....and it just so happens that most the data they have been able to collect is only a fraction of the overall picture.designbot
- fraction of the overall picture.designbot
- Like picture a giant graph of all the data, and then take only small fraction of that...I think that's where we are.designbot
- Perhaps they just happen to have the piece of the puzzle that shows a steady incline in temps.designbot
- I hope you're right!ukit
- anyway you cut it, anything that makes us pollute less is a good thing.DrBombay
- DrBombay0
Ever been around an old hot rod that someone has restored? Most times they run on what was "regular" gasoline when we were kids. They stink like gasoline more because they run rich and they use lead or a lead additive. Now imagine every single car on the road was running on those old fuels with that fuel efficiency. I have a friend that had a 70 Lincoln Continental that got seven miles to the gallon of regular gas.
So we can agree that a huge amount of progress has been made since 1970. Now, you have more cars on the road than ever before, Isn't the next natural step to continue the innovation to use less fuel, emit less pollution and on and on?
I thought you people were designers... :D
- lowimpakt0
Designbot -
Just picking up on your water vapour point above because your article mis-represents the science. The role of Water Vapour has been known for a while - I first remember ithe IPCC talking about in in about 2003 - http://www.grida.no/publications…
and NASA have conducted some new studies that identify water vapour as a key mechanism proving climate change - http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth…
"Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
With new observations, the scientists confirmed experimentally what existing climate models had anticipated theoretically."
- lowimpakt0
this is kind of related.
A report on the policing of the Climate Camp at Kingsnorth.
"And why, rather than being straight with the public, did the truth about police "injuries" have to be dragged out of the government by a freedom of information request? At the time of the police operation at the power station in the summer, ministers justified the police's action by claiming that 70 officers had been injured in the course of their duties. Now we know there were in fact only 12 reportable injuries – ranging from wasp stings to backache from sitting too long in a police car."