Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Adamgp]

This whole "war on co2" is ridiculous, IMO.

As Sam said, it's .03% of the atmosphere. Humans only contribute 3% of that .03%.

Co2 is the #3 greenhouse gas behind water vapor (#1 contributor) and methane (there is less methane in the atmosphere than co2 but it way more potent as a greenhouse gas) Both of which have negligible contribution by humans. Co2 gets the focus because it is human's largest contribution. (even though it is the #3 greenhouse gas)

The "problem" with water vapor and methane (almost completely all natural) is the government cant tax them and GW nuts like Al Gore can't get rich off them. Also if it can't be used as a political talking point. (although since the economy tanked, nobody seem to care about global warming anymore)

 

[Sam48]

As Sam said, it's .03% of the atmosphere. Humans only contribute 3% of that .03%.

Keep in mind I never stated that this wasn't significant. However, given that we have little information to compare it to, it's a bit too early to tell (Add to that the rest of my last post as well).

The "problem" with water vapor and methane (almost completely all natural) is the government cant tax them

Yet.

 

[niky]

Now if you lot would all stop eating beef, and we commit genocide and wipe out 99% of domesticated pigs and cattle all in one go, perhaps the rest of us can go on driving our cars in peace. As a bonus, you can grow more food if you don't have to feed cattle.

It's just a thought. Soyburger, anyone?

-

I know it's a subject nobody really cares for, but if we want to maintain a Western level of prosperity and technology, population control is probably the best way to ensure we have enough fuel to continue supporting that for the next hundred years or so... At least until we've switched over generation to a fully renewable grid... Though the available, tappable renewables still aren't enough to cover current levels of usage.

 

[Keef]

Now if you lot would all stop eating beef, and we commit genocide and wipe out 99% of domesticated pigs and cattle all in one go, perhaps the rest of us can go on driving our cars in peace. As a bonus, you can grow more food if you don't have to feed cattle.

Just don't drive through town while all that carbon dioxide and methane from the decomposing methane is hanging around. That'll make you cough.

 

[FoolKiller]

What about CO2 from fermentation? I know when the Buffalo Trace distillery here in town mixes its mash you can smell it all over town.

 

[niky]

Just don't drive through town while all that carbon dioxide and methane from the decomposing methane is hanging around. That'll make you cough.

We stop eating beef after the culling. Be a shame to let those megatons of beef go to waste.

 

[homeforsummer]

Keep in mind I never stated that this wasn't significant. However, given that we have little information to compare it to, it's a bit too early to tell (Add to that the rest of my last post as well)

Agreed on both counts.

A supposed 3% of 0.03 might sound quite small, but we're living in a world where fractions of a degree in mean temperature can result in large changes in climate. Just as the change in the seasons is so stark even though we're 93 million miles from our heat source.

But yes, the real issue is ensuring we have enough relevant past data in order to give current measurements a meaningful baseline.

 

[Keef]

Also, I'm not sure how much you can lay the blame on safety regs and environmental stuff for that...

The EPA is upping the fuel quality standards on Alaska's maritime traffic and Alaska has filed its lawsuit.

 

[homeforsummer]

The EPA is upping the fuel quality standards on Alaska's maritime traffic and Alaska has filed its lawsuit.

Was under the impression Alaskans got nice handouts every year for the liberty of big business ruining the state's natural beauty? Maybe they're worried that less ruination means less cash in hand...

 

[FoolKiller]

Was under the impression Alaskans got nice handouts every year for the liberty of big business ruining the state's natural beauty? Maybe they're worried that less ruination means less cash in hand...

Somebody bought the scare tactics hook, line, and sinker. Do you realize how many square miles Alaska covers? It's like saying that allowing oil drilling in Texas has destroyed the natural beauty of the entire southwest US. Last I checked, the Grand Canyon still looks good.

Alaska's natural beauty is so intact that my environmentalist brother has been four times, and after having been to Europe, South America, all over to contiguous US, and Hawaii he has declared it the most beautiful place he's ever seen.

The larger issue these increased shipping expenses causes is that the price of goods in Alaska is already some of the highest in the US because nearly everything has to be shipped. So, crack wise about them defending their own natural ruination (which is their right to ruin, not yours to defend) but some of them might be a but more concerned with affordable access to things like life-saving medicine and fresh produce.

Did someone mention unintended consequences?

 

[homeforsummer]

I'm glad you mentioned cracking wise, otherwise I might have thought you'd missed the flippancy in my remark...

That said, Alaskans DO still get handouts, don't they? Or has that stopped now? Or did it ever even happen in the first place? I did get my information from The Simpsons on that, so I'd not say its falling for scare tactics as such...

 

[FoolKiller]

That said, Alaskans DO still get handouts, don't they? Or has that stopped now? Or did it ever even happen in the first place? I did get my information from The Simpsons on that, so I'd not say its falling for scare tactics as such...

Not that it matters, but if you mean the Alaska Permanent Fund, which is paid for from more than just oil, then, yes. Nor is it different than some government entities leasing land for resource extraction. Not that using a state industry tax to reduce the tax burdens on residents is a new thing. I'm sure you also have similar feelings toward Florida using their natural beauty to build condos and amusements parks so the various tourism taxes can be charged at a high enough level to not have an income tax.

The fact that they have the APF does not change the fact that in an attempt to attack the "evil" oil industry they are hitting most aspects of Alaska's economy.

 

[Sam48]

I did get my information from The Simpsons on that...

Had I not seen that movie I probably wouldn't have known about Alaska's handouts either.

 

[Keef]

That said, Alaskans DO still get handouts, don't they? Or has that stopped now?

Most native Alaskans probably wouldn't live in this modern world without handouts. Their native way of life is illegal, especially when it comes to territory and hunting, etc. They're forced to abide by laws designed for that one populous city in an area half the size of the country, and that's what happens with this top-down style government. If the governing happened at local levels we wouldn't have such widespread failure either here or in Alaska because the system would be fine tuned to the needs of the people in the specific area.

 

[niky]

Forgive me for not being up to date... Illegal? Don't the natives get a dispensation exempting them from specific whaling, hunting and fishing bans?

 

[homeforsummer]

I'm sure you also have similar feelings toward Florida using their natural beauty to build condos and amusements parks so the various tourism taxes can be charged at a high enough level to not have an income tax.

Florida? But that's America's wang!

The fact that they have the APF does not change the fact that in an attempt to attack the "evil" oil industry they are hitting most aspects of Alaska's economy.

What if the ultra-low sulfur diesel requirements result in vastly improved fish stocks from a reduction in pollution?

Or do unintended consequences not work both ways?

 

[FoolKiller]

What if the ultra-low sulfur diesel requirements result in vastly improved fish stocks from a reduction in pollution?

Or do unintended consequences not work both ways?

It's possible. Unintended positives can happen. It doesn't make the notion that a being a good idea doesn't mean the government should do it suddenly void. Nor do I think one industry seeing a boost can counter an 8% jump in costs for already expensive day-to-day goods.

But the accusation here is that the EPA is creating environmental law without an environmental study. So they actually have no intended consequence. Now, the official EPA story is it is enforcing a maritime treaty amendment from 2010. That doesn't work because the amendment has not been ratified, and by US law that is required before enforcing international treaties. So, even the EPA's reasoning is illegal.

But, unintended improved fisheries. That would mean it affects water pollution. Hard to tell without an environmental study what it is affecting.

Fortunately, the EPA is leaning in the maritime treaty. Wait. That is why they don't need the environmental study, right? If that were legal, yes. That claim blocks the EPA from changing their story mid-trial.

Anyway, what does the treaty say it will do?
http://www.ukpandi.com/knowledge-developments/industry-developments/marpol-annex-vi-air-pollution/

MARPOL Annex VI sets limits on sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from ship exhausts and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances. It also contains provisions allowing for special SOx Emission Control Areas (SECAS) to be established with more stringent controls on sulphur emissions.

That sounds like the limit is on air emissions. So, you could possibly comply without ever touching the water.

Now, ships do cause water pollution through ballast water, noise pollution, sewage, and bilge water.

Ballast water doesn't come into contact with fuel unless there is a leak. Then the problem is far more immediate than pollution.

Noise pollution won't be affected by low sulfur diesel.

Sewage, is clearly an issue, but is not carrying fuel of any form, unless we count methane.

Bilge water. There it is. Bilge water can contain oils and fuel run off. But bilge water can contain so many other toxic chemicals a change in fuels barely does anything. But I wont accept the small change equals nothing argument. Small things are how we get unintended consequences (DDT being an exception as we knew we were allowing deadly diseases to flourish by removing it) But, rules for bilge water have already been in place since 1990. It is illegal to dump it unless you filter it first. There are onshore removal services for it, which treat it as hazardous material.

So, a change in fuel type should only affect water pollution in the event of other laws being broken. So, why would we expect guys breaking previous laws to follow a new one?

Anyway, yes it is possible. But an actual examination of the facts says it is very highly unlikely. My flavor of common sense says the law is dangerous up front, and unconstitutional due to how it is implemented and by whom it is being enforced.

 

[homeforsummer]

Thanks for the explanation 👍

Though using the term "dangerous", are you referring to its illegality, or something physically dangerous that I've missed?

 

[FoolKiller]

Thanks for the explanation 👍

Though using the term "dangerous", are you referring to its illegality, or something physically dangerous that I've missed?

Dangerous, as in being implemented during a bad economic period, and will raise the expenses of their fishing industry (Alaska's primary agricultural industry), is expected to harm cruise tourism (which can bring as many as 10,000 people into cities like Ketchikan a day), will directly impact areas only accessible by boat or air as the Alaska Marine Highway system transports an average of 350,000 people a year, and will raise the price of goods an estimated 8% in a year when a Midwest drought is predicted to raise the price of agricultural goods (including produce, milk, meat, and eggs) by 3%.

Basically, it is dangerous in that it will harm an economy that relies heavily on marine traffic at the worst possible time, and it is being implemented without any form of impact study. In my office we do community impact studies on ideas we have for two years in the future for things that might not even happen. We don't propose something without attaching community impact studies.

 

[homeforsummer]

Basically, it is dangerous in that it will harm an economy that relies heavily on marine traffic at the worst possible time, and it is being implemented without any form of impact study. In my office we do community impact studies on ideas we have for two years in the future for things that might not even happen. We don't propose something without attaching community impact studies.

Seems to be a common theme with the EPA. I don't even think they're quite that bad in Europe.

Edit: Nevermind. Brain fade.

 

[Danoff]

Somebody bought the scare tactics hook, line, and sinker. Do you realize how many square miles Alaska covers? It's like saying that allowing oil drilling in Texas has destroyed the natural beauty of the entire southwest US. Last I checked, the Grand Canyon still looks good.

Also, Texas still looks good. There is oil drilling in California too (not just off the coast, inland as well) Yosemite, Sequoia, Redwoods, Joshua Tree, etc. are untouched. Colorado has plenty of oil drilling as well, but somehow Rocky Mountain National Park is pristine.

There's a lot of land in the US.

 

[Swift]

Also, Texas still looks good. There is oil drilling in California too (not just off the coast, inland as well) Yosemite, Sequoia, Redwoods, Joshua Tree, etc. are untouched. Colorado has plenty of oil drilling as well, but somehow Rocky Mountain National Park is pristine.

There's a lot of land in the US.

Amazing isn't it?

 

[CodeRedR51]

Also, Texas still looks good. There is oil drilling in California too (not just off the coast, inland as well) Yosemite, Sequoia, Redwoods, Joshua Tree, etc. are untouched. Colorado has plenty of oil drilling as well, but somehow Rocky Mountain National Park is pristine.

There's a lot of land in the US.

Colorado is mainly natural gas drilling.

But yes, as evidence by my recent road trip from Phoenix to San Diego, WAY too much boring land too.

 

[Callum B]

My take on things: Global warming is obviously present, with many changes happening which I am not too sure on but there are many... probably. I think this is an inevitable change that has been sped up by human activity but only slightly, the earth's survived much worse than us I mean we can't be that bad, right? *realises he will eat his words*

 

[Sam48]

*realises he will eat his words*

Actually, most people here would probably agree with your post for the most part. I personally don't agree that we've "sped anything up" as there's no evidence of this, but other than that, I pretty much agree.

 

[Callum B]

Actually, most people here would probably agree with your post for the most part. I personally don't agree that we've "sped anything up" as there's no evidence of this, but other than that, I pretty much agree.

I mean some of the pollutants we've chucked into the air over the last 150 years or so must have some affect?

 

[FoolKiller]

Whatever the solution is, resolving the issue won't come from government funded solar.

http://www.lvrj.com/business/amonix...months-heavy-federal-subsidies-162901626.html

Amonix closes North Las Vegas solar plant after 14 months, heavy federal subsidies

BY HUBBLE SMITH
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
Posted: Jul. 18, 2012 | 10:59 a.m.
The Amonix solar manufacturing plant in North Las Vegas, heavily financed under an Obama administration energy initiative, has closed its 214,000-square-foot facility 14 months after it opened.

Officials at Amonix headquarters in Seal Beach, Calif., have not responded to repeated calls for comment this week. The company today began selling equipment, from automated tooling systems to robotic welding cells.

A designer and manufacturer of concentrated photovoltaic solar power systems, Amonix received $6 million in federal tax credits and a $15.6 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to build the plant in North Las Vegas.

 

[Sam48]

I mean some of the pollutants we've chucked into the air over the last 150 years or so must have some affect?

Sure, but we can't say exactly what they are yet.

Whatever the solution is, resolving the issue won't come from government funded solar.

Ditto

 

[homeforsummer]

Would put this in the funny pics thread, but thought it relevant and amusing here:

 

[Tornado]

Why did Las Vegas need a solar electricity plant anyway? Is the massive hydroelectric dam 30 miles away that has been there for 75 years not renewable enough?


Edit: Oh. Manufacturer of solar panels. Not a solar electricity plant. My mistake.