Another reason to ignore the Global Warming Chicken Littles. Not only are they wrong, but their solutions are impotent.

Here is my shocked face after reading the numbers:

Nice post. Too bad many, many sheople see this as bunk. The numbers are astonishing to hear. So many making money off of fear.

Common phrases tend to be used even when they don't really apply, but that 50-to-1 video (OP) is definitely "food for thought".

After viewing it, I used Google to see if I could find some thoughtful reactions to this 50-to-1 line of thinking. Not so much, on this first try, but I will probably return to it.

But I did find a recent report in The Economist from March (2013) about the current state of Climate Science that would probably benefit anyone who is keenly interested in what scientists actually do with the time and monies that are granted to them for climate research, from the ones that predict looming catastrophe from MMGW, to the ones that say "No Problemo..", and all the ones in between: It's the best damn summary of current Climate Science that I've ever seen, and it's really not all that long or wordy, and does not present any multiplicity of hard-to-decipher data plots:

http://www.economist.com/ne...nhouse-gas-emissions

6:30-6:42 sums it up pretty well.

What blame for MMGW belongs to Fryscrapers, other glass buildings, and cement jungles ?

quote Originally posted by NoMoreRicers:

Thanks for posting this. REALLY worth a listen

Arn

I agree that even if Global Warming WAS man made, there is NO WAY to stop it.

but, I do COMPLETELY see the arguement for making the causes pay up.
or in some way take a bite of the $hit sandwhich being made of our one and only habitable planet.

we all know the word. we use it for many things. unsustainable.

but, everything in our past was unsustainable as well. we just find another thing to use up.
funny how all this wraps up into these last 100 or so years of all the time we hairless apes roamed the earth.
the spirals goes fastest closest to the drain?

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: I agree that even if Global Warming WAS man made, there is NO WAY to stop it. but, I do COMPLETELY see the arguement for making the causes pay up. or in some way take a bite of the $hit sandwhich being made of our one and only habitable planet. we all know the word. we use it for many things. unsustainable. but, everything in our past was unsustainable as well. we just find another thing to use up. funny how all this wraps up into these last 100 or so years of all the time we hairless apes roamed the earth. the spirals goes fastest closest to the drain?

While I agree that the polluters should "pay up" - this shouldn't be the only thing. Sure when I travel someplace for a holiday I have an option of buying "carbon credits" to offset my travel - but this is only a feel good thing. Doesn't stop me from traveling - poor example, but the point is, what is the point if they continue to do it? Where does this money go? Is it simply another 'tax' that goes into the government's coffers (or Al Gores pockets since he is invested in these carbon credit companies)?

All governments need to start inducing heavy fines on these companies to force them to pollute less - right now, it is probably cheaper for them to pay a 'small' fine than the cost of an upgrade that would help them reduce.

...and then, what do we do about all this consumer waste. People tossing out their old crap every year or so because something came out that is better? There is a lot of e-waste being generated, yes some is recycled - but the majority is not.

quote Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: While I agree that the polluters should "pay up" - this shouldn't be the only thing. Sure when I travel someplace for a holiday I have an option of buying "carbon credits" to offset my travel - but this is only a feel good thing. Doesn't stop me from traveling - poor example, but the point is, what is the point if they continue to do it? Where does this money go? Is it simply another 'tax' that goes into the government's coffers (or Al Gores pockets since he is invested in these carbon credit companies)? All governments need to start inducing heavy fines on these companies to force them to pollute less - right now, it is probably cheaper for them to pay a 'small' fine than the cost of an upgrade that would help them reduce. ...and then, what do we do about all this consumer waste. People tossing out their old crap every year or so because something came out that is better? There is a lot of e-waste being generated, yes some is recycled - but the majority is not.

I would hope that the fines would be used to counteract, and best as reasonably possible, the effects of those that are fined.
as to "e-waste" - yes - fun stuff. I have access to a center for this. it is where I get gear for my computer lab. palates of servers, switches, routers, entire racks, SANS, and so on. yes, some some, most end-of-life. but, great to learn new things on. I would hope this equipment does make it to other who also can grow with it. but, I do see the bins where the stuff is disassemlbed, and broken into the basic of parts. heatsinks. removable chips. batteries. metals. plastics. cards. cables.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: What blame for MMGW belongs to Fryscrapers, other glass buildings, and cement jungles ?

UHI (Urban Heat Islands):
http://www.urbanheatislands.com

Surface temperatures across highly urbanized areas are measurably higher than the surrounding areas where nature still rules.

This does not contribute directly to global warming, however. It contributes indirectly, because people who are inside of buildings and vehicles use more energy for air conditioning to counteract the somewhat higher outside temperatures that are caused by UHI. Since that energy mostly comes from fossil fuels, the result is additional greenhouse gas emissions; esp. CO₂ and N₂O. If all that energy were being generated from greenhouse neutral processes (hydro, wind, solar, hydrogen, nuclear, geothermal, biomass..) instead of fossil fuels, the UHI effect would still be observable as higher surface temperatures in urban areas, but it would be a localized effect--it would not be considered global warming or contribute to any of the large scale impacts of global warming.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-05-2013).]

There may be legitimate torts against a polluter, but the government is not a legitimate plaintiff.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: Another reason to ignore the Global Warming Chicken Littles. Not only are they wrong, but their solutions are impotent. Here is my shocked face after reading the numbers:

http://llamabutchers.mu.nu/...s/al-gore-speech.gif

quote Originally posted by NoMoreRicers: There may be legitimate torts against a polluter, but the government is not a legitimate plaintiff.

Well said.

quote Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: While I agree that the polluters should "pay up" - this shouldn't be the only thing. Sure when I travel someplace for a holiday I have an option of buying "carbon credits" to offset my travel - but this is only a feel good thing. Doesn't stop me from traveling - poor example, but the point is, what is the point if they continue to do it?

If you increase the price on something, people will do it less. Supply and demand. Increasing the price of travel with a carbon tax will result in less travel.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: If you increase the price on something, people will do it less. Supply and demand. Increasing the price of travel with a carbon tax will result in less travel.

Did you watch the video? Let me answer that for you...No.

We cannot tax our way to anything. It does not work. The law of diminishing returns comes into play. Some will say raise the taxes. Well, can the taxes be raised above 100%? No. The law of diminishing returns.

Finally watched the video. Nice of him to extrapolate only what Australia did recently. Also nice to see that at least there is no denial of the problem.

I can certainly agree that adaptation may be what is necessary however I don't think that adaptation includes just going ahead and relying on the same sources of energy for the future.

It's all about the money and lets be honest, that money is not going to do a dam thing to reduce climate change, all it will do is put money in someone else's pocket who already has more than all of us here on the forum put together and they will do nothing for climate change. what they will do is live even more rich lives than they already do and negate any real climate change than this would ever do.

http://www.snopes.com/polit...usiness/gorehome.asp

the world is and always have been going through global climate changes no matter what we do, always has and always will no matter what we do.

Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't



Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

The argument is against carbon tax trading right? I've never understood where that money goes or what it is used for. My gut feeling has been that it won't work. Now investing in clean renewable energy can work. Economics will always be a part of that, so until renewable energy is cost effective it won't be used. Anyone who knows me knows how long I've been crazy about high powered cars. I don't see a future for them though, especially if we are going to rely on a finite source of fossil fuels. Being the eternal optimist that I am I'm hoping that there will be technological breakthroughs, especially in solar cells and storage medium. Then I could drive a Tesla roadster with all it's power and handling. I'm always bidding on the Tesla on eBay even though we still need to perfect both the batteries and the electrical source. We will be changing our source of energy in the future. We just need to do it in an economical way. Kind of funny, I went for a ride in a Tesla roadster about a month ago and the owner remarked constantly about how quiet his car is. I actually like the sound of my turbo ls4. His parting remark was that my car is too loud. I agree with the economic points of the post. None of us will use any source of energy that we can't afford.

quote Originally posted by dratts: The argument is against carbon tax trading right? I've never understood where that money goes or what it is used for. My gut feeling has been that it won't work. Now investing in clean renewable energy can work. Economics will always be a part of that, so until renewable energy is cost effective it won't be used. Anyone who knows me knows how long I've been crazy about high powered cars. I don't see a future for them though, especially if we are going to rely on a finite source of fossil fuels. Being the eternal optimist that I am I'm hoping that there will be technological breakthroughs, especially in solar cells and storage medium. Then I could drive a Tesla roadster with all it's power and handling. I'm always bidding on the Tesla on eBay even though we still need to perfect both the batteries and the electrical source. We will be changing our source of energy in the future. We just need to do it in an economical way. Kind of funny, I went for a ride in a Tesla roadster about a month ago and the owner remarked constantly about how quiet his car is. I actually like the sound of my turbo ls4. His parting remark was that my car is too loud. I agree with the economic points of the post. None of us will use any source of energy that we can't afford.

Where does the money go? To "developing countries" to "help them deal with global warming". In other words, it is nothing more than global socialism.

Is "50 to 1" the best that can be accomplished, as far as "bucks" for the bang (greenhouse gas reductions)..? Maybe not.

UN highlights role of farming in closing emissions gap

Changing farming practices could play an important role in averting dangerous climate change says the UN.

In their annual emissions report, they measure the difference between the pledges that countries have made to cut warming gases and the targets required to keep temperatures below 2C.

On present trends there is likely to be an annual excess of 8 to 12 gigatonnes of these gases by 2020.

Agriculture, they say, could make a significant difference to the gap. . . .

But they say that simple changes in agriculture could cut emissions by four gigatonnes, about two thirds of the remaining difference.

Emissions from farming, including nitrous oxide from applying fertiliser and CO2 from ploughing fields accounts for more than 10% of the global total right now.

"The potential is enormous," said Dr Joseph Alcamo from the UN Environment Programme.

"It's not with anything very exotic, it has to do with the way we apply fertilisers to our fields, it has to do with conservation tillage so you don't plough the fields very rigorously."

Conservation tillage includes a number of methods including leaving the previous year's crop residues on the fields to help protect the soils.

The UN cited the example of Argentina where 100 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions have been avoided by a shift to conservation tillage that took place in the 1990s.

They argue that not only would it curb global warming, it would help poor farmers as well.

"You could take a big step down the pathway of sustainable agriculture," said Dr Alcamo,

"You can unite ideas of sustainable agriculture for the whole world together with ideas of controlling emissions by 2020."

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: Is "50 to 1" the best that can be accomplished, as far as "bucks" for the bang (greenhouse gas reductions)..? Maybe not. UN highlights role of farming in closing emissions gap Changing farming practices could play an important role in averting dangerous climate change says the UN. In their annual emissions report, they measure the difference between the pledges that countries have made to cut warming gases and the targets required to keep temperatures below 2C. On present trends there is likely to be an annual excess of 8 to 12 gigatonnes of these gases by 2020. Agriculture, they say, could make a significant difference to the gap. . . . But they say that simple changes in agriculture could cut emissions by four gigatonnes, about two thirds of the remaining difference. Emissions from farming, including nitrous oxide from applying fertiliser and CO2 from ploughing fields accounts for more than 10% of the global total right now. "The potential is enormous," said Dr Joseph Alcamo from the UN Environment Programme. "It's not with anything very exotic, it has to do with the way we apply fertilisers to our fields, it has to do with conservation tillage so you don't plough the fields very rigorously." Conservation tillage includes a number of methods including leaving the previous year's crop residues on the fields to help protect the soils. The UN cited the example of Argentina where 100 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions have been avoided by a shift to conservation tillage that took place in the 1990s. They argue that not only would it curb global warming, it would help poor farmers as well. "You could take a big step down the pathway of sustainable agriculture," said Dr Alcamo, "You can unite ideas of sustainable agriculture for the whole world together with ideas of controlling emissions by 2020."

Any effort to reduce CO2 emissions is a WASTE of time and resources.

It's not just CO2. The report that I cited also references N2O, and parenthetically--I suspect--NH3 and CH4.

That's nitrous oxide, ammonia and methane--the other greenhouse emissions that are increased by common agricultural practices.

I don't have a reference for NH3, but molecule for molecule, CH4 is 25 times more potent than CO2 in terms of greenhouse warming theory, and N2O is 298 times more potent. The chemical bonds are that much more reactive to infrared frequencies, vs CO2.

Actually, those numbers are derived from a combination of infrared reactivity and atmospheric residence time for the various gas compounds.

Source:
http://ecometrica.com/asset...-These-Mean-v2.1.pdf


There are other impacts, aside from global warming:

Unregulated, agricultural ammonia changing ecology in U.S. National Parks
http://www.seas.harvard.edu...tional-parks-ecology

Researchers Discover Adverse Effects of Nitrogen in National Parks
http://www.thecrimson.com/a...ogen-in-natl-parks/#


And there's the ongoing concern about ocean acidification via atmospheric CO2. (One group wants better instrumentation to monitor this.)


So, it's more than just CO2, and more than just global warming in play.

There be no end to the research and media reports, me thinks..

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-06-2013).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: It's not just CO2. The report that I cited also references N2O, and parenthetically--I suspect--NH3 and CH4. That's nitrous oxide, ammonia and methane--the other greenhouse emissions that are increased by common agricultural practices. I don't have a reference for NH3, but molecule for molecule, CH4 is 25 times more potent than CO2 in terms of greenhouse warming theory, and N2O is 298 times more potent. The chemical bonds are that much more reactive to infrared frequencies, vs CO2. Actually, those numbers are derived from a combination of infrared reactivity and atmospheric residence time for the various gas compounds. Source: http://ecometrica.com/asset...-These-Mean-v2.1.pdf There are other impacts, aside from global warming: Unregulated, agricultural ammonia changing ecology in U.S. National Parks http://www.seas.harvard.edu...tional-parks-ecology Researchers Discover Adverse Effects of Nitrogen in National Parks http://www.thecrimson.com/a...ogen-in-natl-parks/# And there's the ongoing concern about ocean acidification via atmospheric CO2. (One group wants better instrumentation to monitor this.) So, it's more than just CO2, and more than just global warming in play. There be no end to the research and media reports, me thinks..

None of which matters if feedbacks are not happening, which they aren't.