Saudi Oil Minister asks OPEC to increase output

[Allison]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=businessNews&storyID=5091274

[spyder913]

fucking hope so.. 2.25 a gallon is ridiculous

I'm so glad I can ride the bus to school/work.

[Hammer]

Bout time we got some favors called in;) Just hang on spyder, all the free Iraq oil will be here anyday now.

2.25 for regular? I think it's still around 1.80 here.

[spyder913]

yup, 2.25 for regular

[Allison]

Lol, Hammer. I didn't say it! ;)

[Roscoes_C&W]

That doesn't eliviate the problem that the American Doller's value is way down from what it used to be therefore you get less oil for your buck.

[Rooster]

And? It's like the ONLY thing that hasn't tripled in price since the 1970's.

Quit bitchin'. :)

As long as the enviro-wackos wanna protect SNOW, we're going to be dependant on OPEC.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Fortuanly for us the Saudi's are heavily dependant on a strong U.S. dollar, so they want our economy to be as stable as possible, esp after they've pissed billions and billions away.

Swifty

[Roscoes_C&W]

Lets bomb them.

[Sparky]

And? It's like the ONLY thing that hasn't tripled in price since the 1970's.

Not tripling since the 70s isn't justification for it increasing 30% in a month.

[Sparky]

Lets bomb them.

Dumbass

[Canidae]

As long as the enviro-wackos wanna protect SNOW
They want to protect our bunny? :eh: :p

[Allison]

As long as the enviro-wackos wanna protect SNOW, we're going to be dependant on OPEC.Lol, yeah. Drilling in Alaska will reduce all our dependence on foreign oil. And as a bonus, I hear that that Alaska oil burns clean and will last us a meeeeeeeelion years. :p

[Boom]

Its not like the Alaskan reserves are infinite. If we get them, prices go down for a while (maybe, big big maybe), we use them up, then we are in the same exact spot we are in now, except the refuge will be destroyed. Alaska reserves don't solve the problem, they just buy us some time. I prefer to solve problems rather they defer them.

The answer is to spend some money developing alternatives to oil. Like renewable energy sources. But since the oil industry is unbelievably rich and powerful I don't think Congress will be doing that any time soon.

[Rooster]

I know it wouldn't solve it, but if we were less dependant on foreign oil, we might have some leverage.

Otherwise, they have us by the short & curlies.

[ArdryMcArdry]

WRONG!

WRONG, you idiot.

WRONG you socialist, pacifist, tree-hugging Canadian.

Hmm....did I miss anything? Just thought I would save some typing.

While I will not even pretend to KNOW FOR A FACT (not opinion) the veracity of all the statements within, it does make for a chilling bedtime read.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html

[Swifty_Johnson]

If we get them, prices go down for a while (maybe, big big maybe), we use them up, then we are in the same exact spot we are in now, except the refuge will be destroyed

The refuge will be destroyed!!!! OMG SAVE THE REFUGE!!!!!!

You ever been there? Plan on going there? Do you even know what this "refuge" is?

It's a long patch of frozen earth that is dirty, miserable, and scarcely populated. Drilling there will be a godsend to the area. Only envriomental wackos down in the lower 48 even care about that place, the locals are all in favor of the drilling as it really is the ass-end of the earth.

Swifty

[Boom]

I've seen pictures. Its gorgeous.

And even if it wasn't, drilling there would just defer our problems for 5 or 10 years and make a few billionaires even more rich. Lets solve our problems, not defer them.

[Rooster]

They've done studies... and it does not destroy the refuge. It actually even helps the animal populations (caribou seem to like congregating around the warm pipes) where they've already built some oil installations. As well, they use ice roads, so there's no damage to the environment (by laying down gravel, sand, what-have-you).

It would be like taking up a postage stamp space on a football field. Ohh.. DESTROYED! :p

Solve, not defer: Okay, so when you get a broken leg, we should just chop it off, because if we let it heal, it may get broke again. :eek: Or, since you keep pooping, we should cut out your intestines so you don't poop anymore? :rolly: Sometimes you have to delay the invetible to reach a permanent solution.

[Boom]

Solve, not defer: Okay, so when you get a broken leg, we should just chop it off, because if we let it heal, it may get broke again.

No, if you get a broken leg you set it and put it in a cast, not just take an aspirin and a shot of whisky and go to sleep. Cutting off the leg is creating a new problem, not solving the problem. Solving the problem is fixing the broken leg.

And those "studies" were done by the oil industry. Studies done by the scientific community and by Universities come to totally different conclusions.

[Boom]

Just checked out the US Wildlife and Fisheries brochure on the Alaska Wildlife Refuge.

It ain't the ass end of the earth.

It ain't a dirty tract of ice.

Hundreds of species of animals thrive there. Its gorgeous. Unspoiled. How can you call it dirty? Its probably the least dirty place on earth since we haven't messed it up yet.

But whatever, trash it. We will have cheaper gas for a few years (maybe) and their will be no places left on earth that we haven't spoiled. In 10 years we will be in the same exact position we are in today. Well, not exactly, a few billionaires will be a little richer then they are today.

[Rooster]

lol... Boom, NO one goes there. They are required, by environmental laws to have a minimal impact on species that NO ONE SEES. No one goes out watching them...

No one said it was dirty (least, I didn't). Few years eh? Mmm K. Yeah, I guess that postage stamp will just magically increase in size at the rate of 100% per year? Sounds like you're using that slipperly slope argument Allison is so fond of decrying.

And I wasn't aware that billionaires getting richer was a bad thing. What do they do with their money, sit on it? No. Being rich isn't a crime.

As for the studies... I think you're incorrect. The environmental studies showed minimal impact and actual benefit some some of the wildlife.

[Tammarion]

My problem with both sides on the effects of oil debate is how basically the most of us (me included) are basically unqualified to figure environmental impact. We're pretty much at the mercy of the PhDs (Pile Higher and Deeper). Take the Valdez. Peeps where predicting that area would be toast for 10 years or more. More like 1. Ditto for Kuwait's fires.

I think that anyone planning to drill there should post a cash bond that boggles the mind. Hey, if the reserves oil is all that, and they can keep it clean, then they get the bond back, no harm no foul right? If it goes south, then we have some billionaires begging on the street, and a lotta money to clean it up.

[Rooster]

Well, it's not like they haven't built oil rigs out there before. It's been done. They know what it will do.

But the tree-huggers are going ape like it's plopping an oil well in the middle of Niagra Falls or something.

[Roscoes_C&W]

Lets kill people in the middle east and steal their oil. They already got the oil fields set up. So all we gotta do is kill them, which is pretty easy cause they are noobies, then take it. This is by far the best option.

[Rooster]

Your contributions in this forum are this "<-->" close to being spam. Either contribute, as far left as Figgy, or far right as Swifty, or shut the hell up.

[Roscoes_C&W]

Well not ban SUV's?

[Rooster]

That's a start, now make it intelligible.

<edited for Roscoe>

That's a good start. Can you try to make it a complete sentence?

[Boom]

Actually, I think we should be draining those Iraqi Oil fields as fast as we can. We saved those people from a Hitler. They owe us. We should start by draining about $100 billion worth of oil to pay for the war, and as long as our soldiers are dying trying to maintain the peace we should drain enough so that the cost of gas in America is about 10 cents a gallon. When they start behaving well enough that we can get the hell out of that place we can turn the pumps back over to them.

I don't think we need to kill anyone like Roscoe said though. Just walk up and say, "Hi, nice oil field. Mind if we pump some for a bit? While we continue to rebuild your infrastructure, police your cities, restore your power, restore your fresh water, etc etc etc? Thanks, you da man."

And I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with Billionaires making themselves richer. I just don't think our Energy policy should have its central focus making a handful of the richest white guys on earth even richer. Maybe it could be a secondary focus. ;)

Now try to wrap your minds around the fact that this post contains these two statements, one of which coming from way out of the right and the other of which is totally coming from the left. :D

[Popo]

Your contributions in this forum are this "<-->" close to being spam. Either contribute, as far left as Figgy, or far right as Swifty, or shut the hell up.


^^^^ that post wasn't spam??

[Roscoes_C&W]

Vehicles should be required to achieve a certain gas mileage unless they are used for commercial purposes which can be decided in the write up of the proposal. Currently the best option for a fuel efficient vehicle are hybrid vehicles and I feel that they do not get good enough gas mileage. I want vehicles that get 100 mpg. I live in Los Angeles, when I drive to and from work I see a plethura of SUV's and 99% of them have 1 person in them. Don't get me wrong, I hate government control. I hate politicians and I hate stupid laws that aren't needed but there comes a point when enough is enough and when people are driving by themselves in a vehicle that gets 7 miles to the gallon it cripples everyone else.

[Canidae]

No .. That post was the Admin of the forums suggesting bluntly that he actually contribute something and not just run his mouth. No one wants to have to sift through posts like his when we are actually having an intellectual debate.



Now, Roscoes second post was tons better!

[Rooster]

They already pay a "gas guzzler" tax if it doesn't meet a certain MPG standard.

Boom, I totally agree... even if you were being sarcastic. Why shouldn't they assist? No, they didn't beg us to come liberate them, but come on... it is better, and certainly *will* be a lot better in the future. They have free press now! (over 100 independent presses!) Women have a say in government! Hundreds of new schools, clinics & other government facilities are being created - giving jobs to those that want them and teaching the youth to build a stronger Iraq for the future. I mean, come ON! Who wouldn't want that for a country? But, in all honesty, the money does have to come from somewhere. But if they were to tap that oil resource, we'd be Satan himself (at least that would be the perception from the arab world and the anti-Bush conspiracy nutcases).

[Boom]

Motorcycles should be mandatory vehicles for everyone.

Once they figure out a way to make them safe. Motorcycles get awesome gas mileage, and are really fun and don't tie up traffic like big huge SUVs.

Not sure how their emissions are. I gotta research that.

[Roscoes_C&W]

The Arab world hates us already. They have allways hated us and they allways will hate us. As far as im concerned I don't care if the middle east likes us at all. I'm sick of all of those people, that is why I suggested we kill them. I really don't care that they are the rightful owners of the oil and the land, we've come across people living on land that we wanted for it's resources before and we just took it. Why are we all of a sudden trying to do things by the book? If Europe doesn't like it screw them as well. Europe hates us already too. Why are we trying to be friends with people? EVERYONE HATES US!

It's too bad that these people don't know how to live in a civilized society because they really could have been something with the amount of resources that they have.

[Hammer]

I don't think there will be any true alternatives until we exhaust our oil supply. Just not much that can compete with it economically speaking. When it's nearly gone, you will finally get Mr. Fusion;)

[Allison]

I was determined to buy a Toyota Prius for my next car, but none of the dealerships had any on the lot for me to look at. So, while I was shopping around at a Nissan deaalership, I was taken by an SUV. I bought it on an impluse. Now, every time I get behind the wheel I feel like I'm contributing to the decline of Western civilization.

Then there's the case of my engagement ring. It was damaged (long story), so my insurance company forked over the money for a new one. But now, I don't want to buy another diamond because I hear so many horror stories about how they're mined. So, my beautiful ring sits in a drawer.

In the words of Kermit, it ain't easy being green. ;)

[Rooster]

If it makes you feel better...

You're actually helping Western Civilization along to it's next incredible energy technology breakthrough when you drive a gas guzzling vehicle. :)

As for your diamond... unless there's actually a movement to change the way it's done (I have NO clue), then getting your diamond replaced will probably feel better than letting it sit, broken in a drawer while you don't feel so good about not getting it fixed.

[spyder913]

SUVs are okay when people actually use them

luxury SUV = waste

[Tammarion]

For the diamond, buy a Canadian one :) Pay no attention to the baby seals mining them and the smirking club-wielding eskimo guards :D

[BugThuggin]

As far as I know we (human beings) have access to a "plethura" of alternate energy sources that we dont use (Nuclear, Solar, Electric, Wind, Natural Gas, Bio-energy, Thermal, etc) because we dont have to. If it really was a 'crisis' like everyone claims we would be using these sources. but actually from what i see it is just rich people trying to make more money. And as for the drilling in Alaska yes its possible, but how long will it last, really 10, 50, 1000? I dont think Drilling in Alaska or anywhere else is the answer, what we really need to do is to look into the alternate sources that i mentioned above. I mean honestly in Power&Energy class last month we built a Go-Kart, 0-60 in 15 seconds, top speed was near 80, got about 30mpg....gallons of CORN OIL, imagine if we put that to use as a supplement to gasoline, or even as a subsitiute. From what im seeing its these Oil Barons and the people who get rich off them are what's holding this back, we switch sources they lose money its pretty simple. I know my veiws are idealistic but i would really like to see us to start switching to alternate sources of power would cut down on pollution, and possibly open new and maybe faster ways of travel. And that as they say, is that.

[Rooster]

I'd love little nuclear powered cars. :)

[Swifty_Johnson]

Rooster calling me far right? That's a new one. :)

I've seen pictures. Its gorgeous.

Huh? It's a drab dreary frozen tundra wasteland, what pictures have you been looking at?

Swifty

[Tammarion]

One stat I read mentioned that after inflation, gas still isn't as expensive as it used to be. And that peeps might be howling, but they're still not gonna buy an econobox.

[Badger]

Drill in ANWAR. We have to.

Boom, you are a commie. Sorry bud but you just are.

God put that oil there for us to use. Drilling in that wasteland will do squat to anything.

The idea that humans can effect the earth in a long term fashion is the epitomy of selfish egotism.

Evironmental Lawyer would of course disagree because rich people dont mind paying assloads of money for everything. When the rest of us cant buy clothes because stupid greens wont let our country use its resources. I dont hear you crying yourself to sleep over all the wildlife in Saudi, Venezuela, Russia..

yeah, not in MY backyard!! BUSH BAD!!!

[spyder913]

Drilling in that wasteland will do squat to anything.It may appear to be a wasteland to you but there is stuff living there.

God put that oil there for us to use.
Actually, a lot of animals and plants died long ago to make that oil.

[Tammarion]

I have to disagree there - the oil in ANWARS not going anywhere. Theres no pressure to take it out now, as opposed to later. Take all the time you want.

Dunno what scale you mean by effect the earth - but Chernobyl is still a ghost town.

[Mulletious]

why hydro eletric cars arent being pushed into society is beyond me...better fuel efficiency overall, less emissions-but of course probably less money, and the cars are lame so far

[Swifty_Johnson]

The problem with eletric cars, the batteries.

The current crop of hybrid cars need to change out the batteries every three years at a cost of $3,000. Than they have to dispose of the old betteries, so it might not be any enviromental safer than normal cars.

Swifty

[Swifty_Johnson]

Dunno what scale you mean by effect the earth - but Chernobyl is still a ghost town.

For mankind, all sorts of animals live in the area now, moving into homes vacated by people.

To put things into perspective.

All the cows on the earth release more methane than we humans produce. (Subtracting Mort's emissions of course.)

When Mt. Saint Helens blew it released more poulltion into the air than mankind did for the previous 10 years.

Swifty

[Tammarion]

For mankind, all sorts of animals live in the area now, moving into homes vacated by people.

To put things into perspective.

All the cows on the earth release more methane than we humans produce. (Subtracting Mort's emissions of course.)

When Mt. Saint Helens blew it released more poulltion into the air than mankind did for the previous 10 years.

Swifty

Just because the earth can effect itself doesn't mean that mankind can't effect it. I've not no intrest in seeing a real-life supervillian build a machine that makes hurricanes happen either. When Kratoa (sp) blew, the earth suffered a case of "nuclear winter" when the pollution blocked out much of the sun for several years. This is the basis for the wasteland of Arthurian lore btw.

So animals moved into the chernobyl site? Big deal - people could too, if they were willing to accept all the health hazard type-fun that went along with it. Its the downside of being a higher life from. Getting your nervous system irradiated tends to have worse effects. Cockroaches can survive radiation that would kill a human 10,000 times over. They can swim in sulfuric acid. But if you make a toxic waste dump, let Boom sue you, and just try to tell the judge how because cockroachs can live there - that you haven't "effected" the site. :)

Killing the environment is an almost impossible task - meaning wiping out every lifeform, and making sure nothing comes back. All we do is change the environment so that lots of lifeforms die, and the new ones that come back tend to be adapted or just able to accept the concequences of that change. But don't tell me that it isn't effected.

[Tammarion]

As far as defining long-term - sure if humanity wiped itself out, perhaps all our stuff would be gone by the time something else evolved to take our place. But as long as we're around, we have to pay attention to what we do to places.

ANWAR might be able to be cleaned up in 1-10 years if something goes wrong.
Chernobyl .... longer than I'd be willing to wait.

Suppose somewhere in the Dodo bird was a cure for cancer? Or to use a less fanciful scenario - modern agriculture tends to use monoculture type crops - a handful of genetic variations within the same species. If we were to get hit by some new disease that affected these breeds - getting the old versions to play with in the labs would be a necessity. Since no one is getting paid to grow wild corn, or whatever, these grow wild in their country of origin, and their environments have to be protected.

Extinction of species is also an event with very long-term concequences.

[Swifty_Johnson]

But don't tell me that it isn't effected.

I didn't say the one SMALL area wasn't effected, but the earth on the whole didn't notice a thing.

Swifty

[Roscoes_C&W]

I'm all for wiping out the environment and killing people if it's going to make me happier in the short term, because life is short. Whatever happens when I'm gone, dead, doesn't matter to me. As long as I can get gasoline and food and water for cheap im good to go cause I can spend the saved money on drugs, hookers, beer and gambling.

[Tammarion]

Without the environment life gets shorter. Gas, food, water get more expensive. And killing people tends to make peeps concider killing you. Unless of course, they were thinking it already. :D

[Tammarion]

I didn't say the one SMALL area wasn't effected, but the earth on the whole didn't notice a thing.

Swifty

Think of it as the 7-day free download trial :D

[Boom]

LOL, I don't even know where to start! Well I guess first of all I wasn't being sarcastic. We should be pumping out that oil to pay the costs of restoring peace to Iraq. Actually, we aren't restoring peace because there was never peace there in the first place, we are bringing them peace, or at least we are trying very very hard to. For the next 20 years gas prices in the U.S. should be about 10 cents a gallon, courtesy of Iraq. No sarcasm, no joke.

Swifty, its not a barren tract of ice. The plantlife there has adapted to be able to grow in a very short period of time. There are amber waves of grain. It supports the largest caribou herds in Alaska. Yes, for parts of the year its partially covered in snow, but at other times its gorgeous, it looks like the midwest, with snow covered mountains overlooking huuuuuuge vast fields of plantlife supporting massive herds of mammals and preditors and birds and all kinds of wildlife.

I am a communist? How is that? I am all about the free market. I think the government spends a little too much time helping the super rich and not enough time helping the middleclass. Small business and competition is what makes the free market system work. Having a very very few super rich people controlling entire industries is a lot more like communism. In the Soviet Union the government controlled all industry. A few rich white men controlled all the government and all industry. In the U.S. a small select group of rich white men control all industry AND the government. I like Teddy Roosevelt. He was no commie. Bust the trusts, break up the monopolies and let small businesses compete. Free market!

We HAVE to drill the Alaska oil? Why? Will it solve our energy problems? I am not convinced. I know that a very select few rich white men will make a ton of money from it. I have no problem with rich white men making themselves more money, I just don't think that should be the primary goal of our energy policy.

The idea that humans can effect the earth in a long term fashion is the epitomy of selfish egotism.

To not see that we are effecting the earth in a long term fashion you must have your eyes closed and ears stuffed with cotton. In the last 100 years we have had a mass extinction like nothing seen on this planet since the dinasours were wiped out. The numbers of species that have gone extinct is unbelievable. And its completely caused by humans. The hole in the ozone is real. We have popped a HUGE HUGE hole in the atmosphere of our planet. I think that qualifies as effecting the earth in a long term fashion. We are raising the temperature of our planet. It is not a cooincidence, it is caused by humans. Massive shelves of ice, the size of States are breaking off of the polar caps and floating away to melt into the ocean. The level of the ocean is rising. My city is already 2 feet below sea level. We better start raising those levees.

You really don't know that man has changed the earth in a long term fashion? You know our great midwest desert in the United States? You know that it wasn't a desert when white men got here? We didn't know how to manage our livestock. We didn't manage our grazing in an environmentally sound manner. You can have large numbers of animals graze fields and not turn it into a desert. Before white man came to the United States there were 100 million Bison. That is a LOT of huge animals. They worked like tractors, they fertilized the fields with their poop, the tilled the fields with their hooves and their incredible weight, and they harvested the fields by grazing, and our land was incredibly productive, stuff was growing everywhere. We killed the buffalo (not to eat them, but to starve out the Native Americans) and started breeding cows and grazing them without knowing what we were doing. And we created a massive desert. You don't think that was a long term change? Land capable of sustaining 100 million animals weighing 2 tons each is now a desert. That seems like a pretty big change to me. And it is definitely long term. You know how long it takes a desert to turn into productive land?

Do I even have to start on the rainforests in South and Central America? I know you conservatives blow a gasket when you hear a liberal say "rainforest" but the fact is we need them. They make air. I like to breathe. Nuff said.

Evironmental Lawyer would of course disagree because rich people dont mind paying assloads of money for everything. When the rest of us cant buy clothes because stupid greens wont let our country use its resources.

I'm not rich, and I do mind. A true environmentalist doesn't mind people using resources. We want them used in a sustainable manner. Lets take logging for instance. A true environmentalist does not want forests made "off limits" to the timber industry. A true environmentalist knows that a large forest produces millions of pounds of timber a year. A logging company, that practices enviro friendly logging, can take millions of pounds of timber from a forest every year FOR EVER AND EVER AND EVER AND EVER!!! A dumb logging company can clearcut a forest in 5 years and wait 200 years for it to come back. I am all about using our resources. I just want to use them in a way that preserves them so my children can use them too.

Here is the analogy I like to use. If an environmentalist has an appletree in his backyard, he will shake the tree, and eat the apples that fall. He may try to climb the tree (which is a lot of work) and get some apples off the lower brances. And next year he will do the same thing. If an industrialist has an apple tree in his backyard, he will laugh at the stoopid environmentalist who is leaving all those great juicey apples up in the tree. The industrialist will chop down the tree in his own backyard and laugh and laugh and say, "I got 5 times as many apples as that stoopid environmentalist. I sold my extras and became rich." Then next year, the industrialist will buy more property and cut down more apple trees. And when the environmentalist says "Omg please stop! If you keep this up there will be no more apple trees!" The industrialist says, "Bah, go plant some damn trees , they will grow eventually. If I can't cut down these trees then people can't buy my apples, or I will have to hire tree climbers to pick the apples and charge three times as much. God gave us these apples trees so I could cut them down and get the apples, cry more noob!"

And it won't ever come back the way it was, you can replant the trees, but if there is a certain type of moss that the tree needed to live, and we didn't know about it, we are screwed. A forest isn't just trees, its thousands of species all interrelated, all working together. Its way too complicated for us to reproduce.

I dont hear you crying yourself to sleep over all the wildlife in Saudi, Venezuela, Russia..

Then you aren't listening.


All the cows on the earth release more methane than we humans produce. (Subtracting Mort's emissions of course.)

True statement. There is a ridiculous number of cows in the world now because we breed and herd them and eat way too much of them. I'm terribly guilty of this. I eat way more beef then is healthy. We don't manage these farms in environmentally responsible ways. We let them graze in ways that turn rainforests into deserts. Our proclivity for beef is causing incredible environmental distruction and destroying the Ozone. Great example of how we are causing long term harm to the planet.

[Boom]

The idea that humans can effect the earth in a long term fashion is the epitomy of selfish egotism.

Not caring whether or not humans are effecting the earth in a long term fashion is the epitomy of irresponsiblity.

[Tammarion]

Looks like boom hit the foaming at the mouth limit :D

[Boom]

Naw, its hard to tell tone of voice on the internet. I'm not hunched over the keyboard foaming at the mouth. I'm leaning back and sipping on my coffee. I've been involved in this too long to be outraged or indignant anymore. I'm just kind of sad.

[Tammarion]

If you want to see environmental meltdown, watch China over the next 10 years - 1 billion people discoving the joys of the internal combusion engine and electric power, and a world outlook that makes Roscoes look like a nice guy. If they drop female babies down wells to get another shot at a male kid, how much of a damn do you think they give to conservation and green power...

Already hydro projects on the Yanghze have flooded landfills, which are no longer landfills, but land-floats, with all that yummy stuff floating to the top.

And the west basically has no leverage in that direction other than sitting back and watching them choke on their own trash. (and ours too, if they're silly enough to take it for less money that it costs to dispose of it properly)

[Tammarion]

Nah I mean that Boom hit the length limit cutting off his post. :)

[Swifty_Johnson]

I think that qualifies as effecting the earth in a long term fashion. We are raising the temperature of our planet. It is not a cooincidence, it is caused by humans.

In the 70s and early 80s we were cooling the planet and forcing the next ice age to come early. If you think for one instance than mankind is raising the earths tempatures than you are giving us much more credit than we deserve.

Swifty

[Jammer]

Actually, a lot of animals and plants died long ago to make that oil.

So what you're saying is we need to quickly kill us a bunch of animals so we can ensure cheap oil for generations to come? ;)

Jammer

[Boom]

In the 70s and early 80s we were cooling the planet and forcing the next ice age to come early. If you think for one instance than mankind is raising the earths tempatures than you are giving us much more credit than we deserve.

I think you might be a little mixed up here. We are causing global warming. I'm not giving us more credit then we deserve. There is so much science on this it boggles the mind. You have heard of global warming, right? Global warming will eventually cause another ice age. I know that sounds backwards but its not. The polar caps will melt, and the sea level will rise. The surface of the earth will be a large percentage sea (which reflects a lot of the sun's energy) and a lower percentage land (which absorbs the sun's energy/heat). This is how we are bringing on another ice age. Not by cooling the earth's temperature, but by global warming and raising the sea level. The average earth's temperature has raised by an amount that scientists say is significant. It is more than can be explained by normal temperature deviations. It only takes a change of a few degrees in temperature to cause massive worldwide climatic effects. This is a serious situation.

Again, you ask me to support my facts and stuff. Please show me anything that says we ever were lowering the temperature of the earth. Many times I have been asked to support my assertions, I ask you to support this one. I believe you are mistaken here. I could have started this post by saying "Wrong!" but I think that's rude.

And I don't think I should have to do the research for you on global warming. Put it in google and you should find thousands of studies by the most respected scientific organizations in the world proving that human activity is causing global warming which will lead to an ice age.

[Oakwing]

What a wonderful topic... Where to start.

First, I work for the oil industry and have done so for 15 years. My opinions will be the opposite of what you would expect, but they are shared by many in the industry...

Drilling oil in Alaska will not solve any problem. It just delays the inevitable. The key issue to address is the American belief that they have a God given right to cheap energy.
- In the 70s you could get 5 loaves of bread for $1. Now that same commodity goes for $1.80 per loaf.
- People pay $0.70 per pint ($5.60 per gallon) for water (which is likely coming from the public works of some city).
- In the 70s minimum wage was in the $1.50 range (not sure of exact numbers) while today it is $5.60 plus.
- In the 70s a gallon of gasoline cost approximately $0.70. Today it averages $1.40 per gallon but has recently spiked to $2.00.

The truth is that everything is getting more expensive and if the inflation of energy kept pace with pay and food, it would cost us $2.60 - $6.30 per gallon. Thankfully the technology of the industry has improved resulting in reducing the efficiency of production. Also, in this same time the fuel efficiency of vehicles has been steadily improving. The advent of SUVs and their popularity is one of the biggest hits to the environment to occuring in several decades. This craze is working to set back the development of more energy efficient modes of transportation with "people" seeking bigger, more ostentatious modes of travel. Hummer2. Why?

My personal preference to solving this ever increasing dilemna? Set a plan to gradually increasing energy prices and use the funds from this effort to build better and safer modes of public transportation. Have any of you been to Europe? Their public transportation is amazing. If you wanted to, you could survive without a vehicle. Yes, the US is more spread out and this solution would not meet all of our needs, but it could cover the areas where population is most dense. I ofter wonder what our country would be like if the auto industry had not been permitted to purchase the public rail systems that were developing in the bigger cities and then permitted to dismantle them. Would the US be more like Europe now? In essence, make energy more expensive and American's will start purchasing more energy efficient vehicles out of economic necessity. If demand increases, the auto industry will devote greater resources to developing more efficient vehicles and the competition will then start driving the sytem in the direction that is more fitting for a more environmentally, energy efficient future.

An additional benefit of increased energy cost is that recycling becomes more economical. Currently it is cheaper to produce new materials then it is to reprocess previously "used" materials. Plastic, metal, paper, etc. would see increased incentives to recycle.

... Time to do some work, but more on this issue to follow...

[Swifty_Johnson]

I think you might be a little mixed up here. We are causing global warming.

I'm not mixed up, I do remember the times. Only a few decades ago scientist were positive we were heading into the next ice age. (and there was NO mention of global warming, just that the ice age was comming and we were all doomed!!!!!!)

There are also studies to indicate that the planet has been warning for the last few HUNDRED years. So saying the we humans are causing golbal warming is not fact.

I believe you are mistaken here.

Nope, I am not mistaken, I remember what the scientist were saying in the late 70s and early 80s, and it directly contridicts what they are saying today. Garbage treaties like the Koyoto accords isn't going to solve the problem either.

Swifty

[Boom]

Show me.

[Sparky]

There are also studies to indicate that the planet has been warning for the last few HUNDRED years. So saying the we humans are causing golbal warming is not fact.

Hey, guess who's been screwing around with the environment for the last few hundred years? Here's a hint, it's not the humpback whales...

[Boom]

And everything Oakwing said is right.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Show you what? You know as well as I do that the material isn't on the web, but archived in film vaults whereever they were made. BUT here is current infomation.

http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/ba/ba230.html

Seems they don't agree with you.

Swifty

here's more.

http://www.coaleducation.org/issues/top10.htm

[Sparky]

Your first link didn't work for me.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Hey, guess who's been screwing around with the environment for the last few hundred years? Here's a hint, it's not the humpback whales...

It could be the bitch with perminate PMS, Mother Nature.

Swifty

p.s. we do need to regulate SUVs more. They should have a min city gas milage of 20 MPG.

[Allison]

/applaud Oakwing :)

[Boom]

LOL, nice source. That is one of the most infamously conservatively biased groups out there.

And everything is on the web. I'm sorry, but you have made me show you the facts behind every assertion I have made. I am not going to believe that scientists in the late 70s were saying we were cooling the planet based on your memory considering you where what? 3 years old at the time? Were you even alive in the 70s?

[Tammarion]

Personally I don't know much about global warming and I really don't care - cutting down fossil fuel use is a good thing on general principles. If it really does cool down the world, thats gravy.

[Boom]

Here is a little background on the NCPA

http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipients/ncpa.htm

Please note the oil execs on the board.

Here is a little information about one of the NCPA's largest donors.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/bradley_foundation.htm

Here is another one.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/scaife_foundations.htm

What do you know? Oil money. Lots and lots and lots of oil money supporting the NCPA which claims to be a "non-partisan" think tank, but everyone knows it is one of the largest sources of conservative propaganda in the country.

Here is another large donor. A chemical and munitions fortune known for supporting right wing think tanks.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/john_m_olin_foundation.htm

Swifty, you win the award for citing the most untrustworthy and biased source in the history of this forum. This is worse than me citing from Al Franken (which I haven't done).

[Swifty_Johnson]

And everything is on the web.

No, it's not. Material before the internet even existed is extreamly rare to be on the net.

I am not going to believe that scientists in the late 70s were saying we were cooling the planet based on your memory considering you where what? 3 years old at the time? Were you even alive in the 70s?

Ouch! I was born in 1968, and yes, in grade school, jr. high, and high school I was bombarded with how we were heading to the next ice age. I had an earth science class in high school and we saw a film about mankind was going to cause the next ice age and drastically drop the earth's tempatures. I don't have the text books, nor the film as they were property of the high school.

Deneying it didn't happen isn't going to change the facts that it did.

Swifty, you win the award for citing the most untrustworthy and biased source in the history of this forum.

In order for something to be untrustworthy, you must disprove the facts they use, not quote other biased and untrustworthy sources as means of your proof.

Swifty

[Boom]

Lets see what the United States Environmental Protection Agency has to say about Global warming. The EPA is currently headed by Bush appointees and is directly responsive to the executive branch. I don't think anyone can claim that the EPA is a liberal mouthpiece (in fact us liberals are pretty pissed at the EPA these days).

Ok, from the EPA website.

According to the National Academy of Sciences, the Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases – primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

That's just the introduction paragraph. Hmmm, National Academy of Sciences says accelerated warming during the past two decades. But your sources says that is wrong?

Lets see what else the EPA has to say...

Why are greenhouse gas concentrations increasing? Scientists generally believe that the combustion of fossil fuels and other human activities are the primary reason for the increased concentration of carbon dioxide. Plant respiration and the decomposition of organic matter release more than 10 times the CO2 released by human activities; but these releases have generally been in balance during the centuries leading up to the industrial revolution with carbon dioxide absorbed by terrestrial vegetation and the oceans.

What has changed in the last few hundred years is the additional release of carbon dioxide by human activities. Fossil fuels burned to run cars and trucks, heat homes and businesses, and power factories are responsible for about 98% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, 24% of methane emissions, and 18% of nitrous oxide emissions. Increased agriculture, deforestation, landfills, industrial production, and mining also contribute a significant share of emissions. In 1997, the United States emitted about one-fifth of total global greenhouse gases.

How ego centric of me to think that humans could have an effect on our climate.

Global mean surface temperatures have increased 0.5-1.0°F since the late 19th century. The 20th century's 10 warmest years all occurred in the last 15 years of the century. Of these, 1998 was the warmest year on record. The snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere and floating ice in the Arctic Ocean have decreased. Globally, sea level has risen 4-8 inches over the past century. Worldwide precipitation over land has increased by about one percent. The frequency of extreme rainfall events has increased throughout much of the United States.

Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. Scientists expect that the average global surface temperature could rise 1-4.5°F (0.6-2.5°C) in the next fifty years, and 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) in the next century, with significant regional variation. Evaporation will increase as the climate warms, which will increase average global precipitation. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Sea level is likely to rise two feet along most of the U.S. coast.

Sea level rising? Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, from my posts in this thread. Its risen 4-8 inches over the past century and the US EPA says it is likey to rise 2 feet along most of the US coast in the next 50 years. Damn, that's a pretty significant long term change. Those ego-centric Bush appointed EPA guys must be out of their minds.

And your nonbiased source says that the change has been gradual over the last 200 years, not pronounced over the last two decades. I guess the US Climatic Data Center is totally off with this chart which the EPA should know better than to post on its site.

[Boom]

I was born in 1970. I also remember learning about the forecasted ice-age. However I remember learning why the scientists thought we were headed for an ice age. Global Warming. They didn't say there was going to be an ice age "just because." They had a reason to think so. You seriously say they didn't say anything about Global Warming in the early 80s? It was HUGE. A major environmental issue, just like it is now. No scientist ever said that the temperature is currently dropping (as you stated they did), they claimed the rising temperatures are causing the sea level to rise which will lead to an ice age.

This is a pretty technical scientific issue. Its possible that in 1978 when you were 10 years old you didn't quite grasp it all and thought when they said there was an ice age they meant it was getting colder. That is not an attack on your intelligence at all. I think that is about as much as an above average 10 year old could be expected to understand it. I know I was confused as hell about Global Warming when I was 10 years old.

[Boom]

If you don't trust the EPA, here is the scientific report behind their findings.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUM9T/$File/ghg_gwp.pdf

[Boom]

If the EPA isn't enough authority, lets look at the National Climatic Data Center. I'm now reading a report by its National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Of course it confirms what I've said about pronounced raising of temperatures cause by human effects.

Is the climate warming?
Yes. Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data).

Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).

And it even confirms what I've said about sea level rising.

Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of 1 to 2 mm/year over the past 100 years, which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years. Projected increase from 1990-2100 is anywhere from 0.09-0.88 meters, depending on which greenhouse gas scenario is used and many physical uncertainties in contributions to sea-level rise from a variety of frozen and unfrozen water sources.

I think I'll take the word of the EPA and the National Climatic Data Center (even though they are conservative controlled now) over your "think tank" supported by oil money.

[Cavan]

I don't see how someone can make an educated guess about the presence of global warming when there is only data for temperatures back to the 1880's... the earth is Millions of years old (so if temperature results go back further than 1880.. still isn't Millions of Years)... we can't say that the natural pattern of the earth's temperature does not rise and fall over time... We can't even say how much it rises and falls... we can only make educated guess with the results we have... which in the scope of the Earth's age.. is not totally reliable...

[Boom]

An answer for Cavan from the National Climatic Data Center.

Paleoclimatic data are critical for enabling us to extend our knowledge of climatic variability beyond what is measured by modern instruments. Many natural phenomena are climate dependent (such as the growth rate of a tree for example), and as such, provide natural 'archives' of climate information. Some useful paleoclimate data can be found in sources as diverse as tree rings, ice cores, corals, lake sediments (including fossil insects and pollen data), speleothems (stalactites etc), and ocean sediments. Some of these, including ice cores and tree rings provide us also with a chronology due the nature of how they are formed, and so high resolution climate reconstruction is possible in these cases. However, there is not a comprehensive 'network' of paleoclimate data as there is with instrumental coverage, so global climate reconstructions are often difficult to obtain. Nevertheless, combining different types of paleoclimate records enables us to gain a near-global picture of climate changes in the past.

Basically they admit their data of old temperatures is not complete but they do have enough information to work with and show that what is going on now is not normal.

Large and rapid climatic changes affecting the atmospheric and oceanic circulation and temperature, and the hydrological cycle, occurred during the last ice age and during the transition towards the present Holocene period (which began about 10,000 years ago). Based on the incomplete evidence available, the projected change of 3 to 7°F (1.5 - 4°C) over the next century would be unprecedented in comparison with the best available records from the last several thousand years.

[ArdryMcArdry]

Now if we could only stop watering our lawns, and flushing our toilets with DRINKING WATER, I'd be happy.

[Cavan]

True... but I believe over time.. if you look at a year to year comparison.. there have been years where the temperature has gone down.. not just up...

We also don't know how the "EARTH" as an entity handles these changes... I'm pretty sure.. we'd all agree that the "EARTH" doesn't just sit by and let things happen... that in fact it is a living thing that can help itself...

End of the day... we are doing damage to the planet.. but we can't say that the damage we are doing is not reversable... or that the planet can not evolve to handle this damage...

[Swifty_Johnson]

You know, for every source you can post showing that global warming is the cause of humans, I can show one that says differently.

Also, the EPA isn't a solid source as you claim, they are highly vulmerable to junk science as anyone else, esp if they paid a grant for it.

I do accuratly remember the fights. First there was this battle vs Ice Age/ Global Warming. Well the Global warming guys won out, so the Ice Age guys are now like, Global Warming first, than Ice AGE!. Now Siberia is going though the COLDEST period known to man, and now the Global warming guys are like "Well, there is going to be wild variations!"

Ya, right, they don't have any proof, just ideas, but no solid evidance.

You know what someone has done? They were able to drill into the ice in greenland and plot the tempature of the earth for thousands of years by the thickness of the ice layers. You know what, the earth has had extreamly wide variations in it's temps, and we are still below the high points measured in the ice flows. So the worst could be yet to come.

Swifty

[Boom]

Oh, I believe the planet will evolve to solve whatever problems we make. But it might take a few million years. And even if only takes a few thousand years for the earth to fix itself, I still don't think that makes it ok for us to break it.

New Orleans is a very beautiful city. I would hate to see it underwater during my lifetime. Even if the earth can fix itself and lower sea level so that New Orleans can be recovered in a few thousand years, I would still like to avoid sinking it in the first place.

Although, I live on the second story and taking a rowboat to work Venice style would be kinda cool.

[Cavan]

Civil Engineer says... "Don't Build City on Flood Plain..." :bang:

[Boom]

I'm not mixed up, I do remember the times. Only a few decades ago scientist were positive we were heading into the next ice age. (and there was NO mention of global warming, just that the ice age was comming and we were all doomed!!!!!!)

I do accuratly remember the fights. First there was this battle vs Ice Age/ Global Warming.

So was there no mention of global warming, or a big fight betwee the Ice Age scientists and the Global Warming scientists?

If there were any Ice Age scientists, they were wrong. The facts (not guesses, not theories, facts) shown by data, hard fast data, collected by our National Climatic Data Center shows that temperature has risen and the most dramatic rise is in the last two decades (didn't you see the nice chart I posted), which correlates with the rise in greenhouse gases. It is an accepted scientific fact that warmer temperatures lead to ice ages.

Now you say the EPA is junk science? Their facts are not ideas and theories written by people they gave grant money to, its data from the NCDC and its supported by the enormous study performed by IPCC http://www.ipcc.ch/ as well as thousands of other studies. The numbers don't lie.

You know what someone has done? They were able to drill into the ice in greenland and plot the tempature of the earth for thousands of years by the thickness of the ice layers. You know what, the earth has had extreamly wide variations in it's temps, and we are still below the high points measured in the ice flows. So the worst could be yet to come.

Another study from your memory that doesn't exist on the web?

Any historic periods of high temperatures have been directly linked to following ice ages.

Fact, greenhouse gases are higher then they have been in hundreds of thousands of years (I show the cites and numbers above)

Fact, this is caused by human industry (I show the cites and numbers above)

Fact, this is causing the temperature of the planet to raise (I show the cites and numbers above)

Fact, this will cause another ice age (I'm getting tired of doing everyone's research for them, but its common sense, less land to absorb heat, more water surface to reflect it, colder planet, ice age).

Oh and as far as Siberia is concerned, its the average planet temperature that we are concerned with. Of course there is going to be variations over the surface of the planet. Not every square inch of the planet is going to have exactly the same raising or lowering of temperature. That doesn't mean the scientists are just guessing and making theories and have no facts. They do have facts, the average world temperature is rising, dramatically so in the last two decades.

[Boom]

And I agree Swifty, the worst is yet to come. That's why it is an issue we should be acting on. It can get worse, we can prevent it. Why is it wrong to want to?

[Roscoes_C&W]

Global warming is nothing we need to worry about.

[]LoL[Harm]

I will only say this, what is more important, your SUV or the health of our communities?

Fact: CO and NO2 are known to have extremely detrimental effects to our health

In concentrations often found in heavy traffic neighborhoods, children are 6 times more likely to develop cancer in their adult life. There is a longitudinal study done by the Lancet that shows this causal correlation.

Fact: No scientist will tell you CO and NO2 are good for you.

Fact: roughly every gallon of fuel you burn adds 24lbs of CO into the surrounding air for all of us to breath.

You shouldn't go green for the planet, you should go green for your friends, your families, your children and the families they will create. Otherwise you're shortsighted and ignoring facts that have been known for decades. Stop being egocentric.

6-9MPG is sadistic and those who drive vehicles like this should be deported to France. ;)

[Swifty_Johnson]

quote]So was there no mention of global warming, or a big fight betwee the Ice Age scientists and the Global Warming scientists? [/quote]

There was no mention of Global Warming being before the next ice age like you claim.

If there were any Ice Age scientists, they were wrong.

Just like the Global warming guys can be wrong now.


Now, as to some of your "facts"

Fact, greenhouse gases are higher then they have been in hundreds of thousands of years (I show the cites and numbers above)

Fact, this is caused by human industry (I show the cites and numbers above)

Fact, this is causing the temperature of the planet to raise (I show the cites and numbers above)

Based on the best available temperature records, the Northern Hemisphere has warmed about 0.65oC since 1860. However, we weren’t producing much CO2 prior to 1945, so the greenhouse effect should have been most prevalent in the last 40 years. But most of the temperature increase occurred prior to 1945. Why then? The most scientifically defensible position is natural climate variation. There has been little or no trend after 1945. When two-thirds of the greenhouse gases were released.

Any historic periods of high temperatures have been directly linked to following ice ages.

Seeing all this happened when we were not on the planet, what makes you think we are responsible now? There are periods of raising earth temps followed by Ice Age thoughout history, way before man even existed.

Now you say the EPA is junk science?

Not all, but they have make blunders in the past with studies, and will so in the future.

Swifty

[]LoL[Harm]

It's my belief (and it is a faith based belief, with a little Gaia Theory backing it) that the earth will regulate it's temperature without our help.

Again, the primary reason people should become environmentally conservative is to make sure we stay healthy and don't end up with a dying race. I feel that the earth will out live us, not because of some crazy disaster but because we choke on our own waste.

(isn't it funny how many liberals are environmentally conservative while many conservatives are environmentally liberal ;))

[Boom]

You didn't answer my question. Was there no mention of global warming like you first said, or was it a big battle between the global warming people and the ice age people like you later said. You claim both times to remember it very clearly, but they are two totally different things. Are you just saying whatever to continue arguing despite all the facts?

But most of the temperature increase occurred prior to 1945.

This is not correct. That is not what the data says. That is not what the chart by the NCDC shows. Most of the increase is in the last two decades. I have shown you several sources for my data. Not just summary conclusions from a partisan mouthpiece like you showed me. Show me the numbers from somewhere reputable that the increase was before 1945. You can't because the most dramatic temp increase was in the last 20 years. This is getting ridiculous. You won't accept any of my data because scientists are wrong sometimes, but I am supposed to accept your statements without any data at all.

Seeing all this happened when we were not on the planet, what makes you think we are responsible now? There are periods of raising earth temps followed by Ice Age thoughout history, way before man even existed.

They have been caused by various factors in history. An enormous volcano eruption can change the climate, an enormous meteor impact can raise enough dust to effect the atmosphere. I never said that humans were the only possible cause of climactic change. But just because we didn't cause it those other times doesn't mean we aren't causing it now.

what makes you think we are responsible now?

Did you even read any of the scientific excerpts I posted above? Do I have to quote myself now? This is what the EPA says (again).

According to the National Academy of Sciences, the Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases – primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

According to the National Academy of Sciences (are you going to tell me I shouldn't trust their data either? While you continue to cite your conservate mouthpiece of the oil industry) the temperature has risen over the last century with accelerated warming during the past two decades. As you state, if I was right the temperature increase should be more dramatic in recent years. And guess what, it is!

But most of the temperature increase occurred prior to 1945.
Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data).

So 2/3s (.4 degrees out of .6 degrees total) occured in the last 25 years. If 2/3rds were in the last 25 years how was most of it before 1945? And as I've already quoted the EPA states that the increase was accelerated in the last two decades.

You ask "what makes you think we are responsible now." How about the EPA saying "we are responsible now." But I don't want to paraphrase them when I can quote them exactly saying "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

what makes you think we are responsible now
There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities

Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point.

The National Climatic Data Center says there is no scientific debate on this point. However, you still debate it. What does that tell you?

[Rooster]

There was a report of Global Dimming out today. So which is it, Global Cooling or Global Warming?

Archaelogists will look back at our society in a 1000 years and think... wow... everyone that ate breakfast died. Eating breakfast kills people! No more breakfast for people, it kills!

It's one small factor, one small snapshot, and it's all hypothesis.

The earth is on a cycle of warming and cooling, that is accepted. Why can't some scientists figure out that we're in a warming trend now?

And I've heard so many different things over the last 10 years about what is a green house gas. My favorite one is CO2. Carbon Dioxide. Greenhouse gas :rolly: Yeah, k... take away all the CO2, you kill all the trees you dumbasses. They wanna cut back on CO2 emissions, start with them, NOT BREATHING. You greenhouse gas polluting scumbucket.

Don't even get me started on the Kyoto treaty. It's the most conniving self serving piece of paper I've ever heard of. All the countries except the US get exempted from penalties and the US has to pay everyone else. Yeah, K. And NO ONE sees anything wrong with this?

The ONLY reason they have ANY technology is because of us. The ONLY reason we're going to survive ourselves is because of US. The only reason they have a chance at survival in the human race is because of US. Ungrateful bitches.

[Rooster]

LoL[Harm']It's my belief (and it is a faith based belief, with a little Gaia Theory backing it) that the earth will regulate it's temperature without our help.

Again, the primary reason people should become environmentally conservative is to make sure we stay healthy and don't end up with a dying race. I feel that the earth will out live us, not because of some crazy disaster but because we choke on our own waste.

(isn't it funny how many liberals are environmentally conservative while many conservatives are environmentally liberal ;))I agree. The earth will be FINE. We're so EGOTISTICAL to think we can actually affect the PLANET. We've freakin' nuked underground, above ground...

Can we even stop a tornado? Hurricane? Heck, RAIN!?

People just can't handle being insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

[Rooster]

http://www.junkscience.com/images/robinson.gif

[Rooster]

http://www.cato.org/dailys/6-30-97.html

We can't even predict weather 7 days in advance. I'm certainly not concerned about all the so-called scientists that would be out of a job if the global warming myth were debunked completely.

[Swifty_Johnson]

You didn't answer my question. Was there no mention of global warming like you first said, or was it a big battle between the global warming people and the ice age people like you later said. You claim both times to remember it very clearly, but they are two totally different things. Are you just saying whatever to continue arguing despite all the facts?

Nope, I answered it already, the same way both times. There was a lot of people saying the next ice age was comming, and they made no mention of there being any global warming before it. There was some saying Global warming was comming, but intil the late 80s they were in a minority. Again, those that cried ice age said nothing about global warming.

Did you even read any of the scientific excerpts I posted above? Do I have to quote myself now? This is what the EPA says (again).
While you continue to cite your conservate mouthpiece of the oil industry) the temperature has risen over the last century with accelerated warming during the past two decades. As you state, if I was right the temperature increase should be more dramatic in recent years. And guess what, it is!

Wow, you didn't even look at the webpage from the "Conservative Mouthpiece of the oil industry", so why should I even look at the "liberal whiners who can't get a real job's data?" The info I posted came from a differant souce than the "conserative mouthpiece" yet becasue you are so set in your ways, you are totally unwilling to accept anything that doesn't tow the line you think is true.

The National Climatic Data Center says there is no scientific debate on this point. However, you still debate it. What does that tell you?

I don't debate it, but there are other scientific sources that say their conclusions are wrong. Seeing that you are falling all over yourself into thinking it's true, we know who has the open mind, and who has the closed one.

Personally, while global warming might be happening, I don't think that mankind is 100% behind it. More reasearch is needed to determin what is really happening so we can take the right steps, vs knee jerk reaction that might make things worse. (Koyoto)

One good step would be to stop the destruction of the Amazon rain forrest.

Swifty

[Boom]

Liberal whiners? I'm sure GWB would laugh his ass off at you calling his appointees liberal whiners. The EPA is run by conservatives appointed by GWB. He fired all of my people. Sorry, but my facts all came from conservative sources. Just not a shill of the oil industry like yours. I could get facts from liberal sources. I'm sure they would rely on some of the same studies the EPA relied on, but would be worded much more strongly. And I did read your cites. Every word of them. No data to support their conclusions. No numbers. No cites to any studies. My cites (from my republican conservative sources) have plenty of links to the raw data that support them. So I read your data and can explain (at length) the problems with it. You admit you didn't read mine. And I am close minded? And I am unwilling to accept anything that doesn't tow the line as to what I think is true?

Now you say global warning is probably happening? That's not what you have been saying all day. If you think global warming might be happening why were you arguing so strongly against it?

You have contradicted yourself so much in this thread that I'm starting to think this is one of those instances where you aren't being totally serious but are just egging me on for the point of argument (like you admitted to doing in another thread).

In the 70s and early 80s we were cooling the planet and forcing the next ice age to come early.

You still haven't shown one cite or quote or anything to support this. If there was a large scientific support for this, there would be something on the internet about it.

Only a few decades ago scientist were positive we were heading into the next ice age. (and there was NO mention of global warming, just that the ice age was comming and we were all doomed!!!!!!)

Again, if this truly happened there should be some support somewhere for it. And you have changed your story. You were clearly saying that the scientists of the time were claiming that HUMANS were somehow cooling the planet and were saying nothing at all about global warming. Apparently these scientists had no explanation of HOW we were cooling the planet. You cannot show me that any scientists have ever said this. You can't even explain what they were saying. How were we cooling the earth? I admire your tenacity but this argument makes no sense. And you are changing your story just to keep the argument going. You first said the scientists said we were heading into an ice age and there was no mention of global warming, now you say there was a big debate in the scientific community between the ice age scientists and the global warming scientists. I mean come on, look at that quote. Your words are clear. You don't say that the ice age scientists didn't say that global warming would cause it, you say that the scientist of the time all said an ice age was coming and "there was NO mention of global warming, just that the ice age was comming and we were all doomed!!!!!!"

Anyway, you stated this before stating the following quote.

If you think for one instance than mankind is raising the earths tempatures than you are giving us much more credit than we deserve.

Now you say....

Personally, while global warming might be happening, I don't think that mankind is 100% behind it.

This seems to imply that we might be something less than 100% behind it. So something between 1% and 99%? So now you are willing to admit we are partially behind global warming? So we are having an effect on it? We are raising the earth's temperature? Then I guess you are backing off your first statement that if anyone thinks for one instance (shouldn't that be instant?) that we are raising the temperature we are giving ourselves too much credit?

Since the industrial revolution CO2 levels have increased from 280ppmv to 370ppmv. That's a 32% increase. That is dramatic. There is no doubt in the scientific community that we have caused this. Higher levels of CO2 cause global warming. You still think its giving us more credit then we deserve?

And I've heard so many different things over the last 10 years about what is a green house gas. My favorite one is CO2. Carbon Dioxide. Greenhouse gas Yeah, k... take away all the CO2, you kill all the trees you dumbasses. They wanna cut back on CO2 emissions, start with them, NOT BREATHING. You greenhouse gas polluting scumbucket.

Noone is saying to take all the CO2 out of the atmosphere. We need it. Everyone knows that. But too much of it is no good. It poisons the atmosphere. You wan't proof? But a bag over your head. As you breath the bag fills with CO2. You will die. Come on Rooster, you are being silly now. Noone has ever said that we should get rid of all the CO2. But we need to make sure we aren't making so much CO2 that we kill ourselves.

Our problem with CO2 is twofold. First of all, our industry is producing more of it then the earth is used to processing. That is why the levels of CO2 have gone from 280ppmv to 370ppmv. It is increasing. This isn't opinion. This isn't liberal propaganda. This is scientific fact. It is empirical data that has been tested and retested and retested. Those are the numbers. The second problem is that we are destroying our CO2 sinks. The rainforests. They soak up the CO2 and convert it to nice oxygen for us to breath. Do you need me to do the research showing that we have clearcut a significant percentage of the earths rainforests, or do you accept that? Or are you going to tell me we haven't cut down a significant percentage of the earth's rainforests.

So we are producing more CO2 then has been produced in hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of years and at the same time we are destroying the earth's ability to process it. But its arrogant of us to think we are having an effect.

One good step would be to stop the destruction of the Amazon rain forrest.

Why? You said its wrong to think for one instant that we are effecting the earth's temperatures. So why stop destroying the rain forests? It has no effect, right? You are contradicting yourself. You say it gives us too much credit to think we can effect it, then you say we should stop destroying the rain forests (obviously because you think it might be effecting it). You are all over the place on this argument. First, global warming is a myth and actually scientists said we were cooling the planet (but you don't remember how) and nothing we do has any effect on the earth's temperatures but then again global warming does probably exist but we shouldn't think for an instant we effect it but actually maybe we do but not 100% so we should stop cutting down the rain forests.

[Cavan]

Something tells me... Boooms has FAR TOO MUCH TIME at work... ..for things other than work... :eek:

[Rooster]

He's a lawyer, of course he has too much time... (and explains why he's a liberal).

*rimshot*

[Swifty_Johnson]

I'm sure GWB would laugh his ass off at you calling his appointees liberal whiners. The EPA is run by conservatives appointed by GWB. He fired all of my people.

You now have proved that you know nothing about the goverment at all. While the heads of the departments change, the people who work the trenches stays the same. One of them "leaked" a heavily biased EPA report that was totally based on junk science, with extreamly little fact as an offical EPA report, so please spare me the garbarge that the EPA is conserative run.

Just not a shill of the oil industry like yours.

I used a differant source for the figures I quoted, so are you charging that every source that speaks out aginst the global warming loonies are oil industry shills?

Apparently these scientists had no explanation of HOW we were cooling the planet. You cannot show me that any scientists have ever said this.

You know as well as I do, that unless someone goes through immense trouble, getting information that was created before the internet on the internet is a pain in the ass. With global warming the current hot topic, noone is going to dig up possibly flawed studies from the 70s and put them on the internet. Even if they did they will be hard to find, and frankly I'm not going to spend the time becasue even if I did find them, your mind is so closed on the topic that you'll refuse to accept it.

So now you are willing to admit we are partially behind global warming? So we are having an effect on it? We are raising the earth's temperature? Then I guess you are backing off your first statement that if anyone thinks for one instance (shouldn't that be instant?) that we are raising the temperature we are giving ourselves too much credit?

Unlike you I have an open mind on the subject. There might be a small chance that mankind is doing it, (unlike you I'm not willing to blindly dismiss stuff becasue it doesn't agree with what I think.) but we must be open to all ideas, as noone has provided the smoking gun.

Why? You said its wrong to think for one instant that we are effecting the earth's temperatures. So why stop destroying the rain forests? It has no effect, right? You are contradicting yourself. You say it gives us too much credit to think we can effect it, then you say we should stop destroying the rain forests (obviously because you think it might be effecting it). You are all over the place on this argument.

Did I say destroying the rain forrest has anything to do with global warming? The Amazon raid forrest is a great producer of oxygen, and last time I checked an oil industries shill website, we need oxygen to breathe. (going to dispute that fact?) Also, the destruction of the rain forrest is being done in the worst possible way, and it's destroying many species of plants that are native to the area.

Swifty

[Boom]

You now have proved that you know nothing about the goverment at all. While the heads of the departments change, the people who work the trenches stays the same. One of them "leaked" a heavily biased EPA report that was totally based on junk science, with extreamly little fact as an offical EPA report, so please spare me the garbarge that the EPA is conserative run.

It is conservative run. The people at the head of it are republican conservatives appointed by Bush. That is why the Clean Air Act is being gutted right now. The people at the top of the EPA have complete control. The report I quoted wasn't leaked by an underling. Its right up there on the EPA website. You are going to tell me that EPA underlings can put stuff up on the EPA website that the EPA leaders don't agree with? It's not hidden in the depths of the website. Its their Global Warming page. Its their official statement. Its right up there. And this is off topic, but the underlings change too. Off the top of my head I can name one. Dr. David Lewis (the genius who discovered that AIDS can be transmitted through dental exams and saved countless lives) was fired under Bush because he challenges the EPA position regarding the safety of using sewage sludge for fertilizer. He wasn't the head of any department, he was an underling scientist doing research. But that's besides the point. You are totally talking out of your ass saying the studies are unofficial junk science leaked by an underling. It is the republican, conservative EPA's official statement on Global Warming. Call them and ask. And it has links to the hard empirical data that backs it up.

I used a differant source for the figures I quoted, so are you charging that every source that speaks out aginst the global warming loonies are oil industry shills?

I found every figure you used (all one of them) on the link you posted. You quoted it verbatum. And the site had no reference for where it got that link, no hard data to back it up. Its a number pulled from the air. And I checked a bunch of other conservative "thinktank" websites and they are all using that same figure, and none of them have the data to back it up.

You know as well as I do, that unless someone goes through immense trouble, getting information that was created before the internet on the internet is a pain in the ass. With global warming the current hot topic, noone is going to dig up possibly flawed studies from the 70s and put them on the internet. Even if they did they will be hard to find, and frankly I'm not going to spend the time becasue even if I did find them, your mind is so closed on the topic that you'll refuse to accept it.

Bullshit. People from all scientific fields (hell all fields) have made great efforts to put the studies and data collected from before the internet was created up on the web. You can find newspaper articles from the 1700s. I regularly research caselaw dating back to the creation of our country (and earlier). If it existed it would be on the internet in some form. Expecially if it was a large scientific consensus taught in schools like you state. You won't show me any proof because you can't. Because it never happened.

Unlike you I have an open mind on the subject. There might be a small chance that mankind is doing it, (unlike you I'm not willing to blindly dismiss stuff becasue it doesn't agree with what I think.) but we must be open to all ideas, as noone has provided the smoking gun.

If I thoroughly read every link you posted and dismissed them because they cannot point to any empirical data or studies to back them up, and they contradict the United States Governments best researchers and scientists who do back up all their statements with test results and data and numbers and studies, I am not "blindly" dismissing them. The fact that your information comes from the most famously biased industry mouthpiece was not enough for me to dismiss their findings. I did my own research and compared your information to the United States Government's information. I decided that I would give more faith to the information that was backed by empirical data. We must be open to ideas, but you are not open to the official statement of the EPA and cannot even give a good reason. You say its junk science because you don't want to be open to it. Not because you can point out errors in the data, or you can point to studies with conflicting data, but because you don't want to be open to it. You are the one blindly dismissing stuff you don't agree with. You are the one saying "Well, I don't agree with that, it is junk science" without giving any explanation of what is wrong with the science. Did they use faulty equipment when testing the levels of CO2 in the air? Did they fail to sign the chain of custody over the lab samples? Did they fail to duplicate and triplicate their results? Were the people in the lab convicted of shooting up heroin? You say its junk science just because you don't like the results. You are being close minded, you are blindly dismissing stuff. The science wasn't done by greenpeace, it was done by government researchers who don't have an agenda. They are paid to run the equipment, and write down the numbers. Then the republican conservative EPA gets the results and puts up the findings on its website for you to not read.

When I link you to the Conservative Republican EPA's official statement on Global Warming you say...

Wow, you didn't even look at the webpage from the "Conservative Mouthpiece of the oil industry", so why should I even look at the "liberal whiners who can't get a real job's data?"

Who is being close minded? I read all your links, I found them lacking in support and data. You don't think you should read mine because its from liberal whiners who can't get a real job. Btw, those studies weren't conducted by liberals looking for ways to bash industry, those studies come from scientists who are paid to study the atmosphere. They had no agenda when they collected that data. They are paid by the government to study the atmosphere and collect the data and report their findings. I'm sure these climatologists and atmospheric scientists would be very offended by your assessment of them. They aren't greenpeace or something, they are government scientists.

Personally, while global warming might be happening, I don't think that mankind is 100% behind it. More reasearch is needed to determin what is really happening so we can take the right steps, vs knee jerk reaction that might make things worse. (Koyoto)

One good step would be to stop the destruction of the Amazon rain forrest.

Did I say destroying the rain forrest has anything to do with global warming?

Yes, you did. Again you are backtracking and trying to twist your own words around just to keep arguing. You did say the rain forest had to do with global warming. Look at the first quote. You say there may be global warming, but the answer isn't knee jerk reactions like Koyoto, and a good step would be to stop the destruction of the rain forests. You most certainly did say that the destruction of the rain forests had something to do with global warming. You were talking about global warming, you said that Koyoto is not the answer, and then said that a good step would be to stop the destruction of the rain forests. I give us too much credit if I think we can effect the atmosphere but then again destroying the rainforests is effecting the atmosphere. You are all over the place here.

[Cavan]

Boooms.... do this... :bang:

Swifty... do this... :bang:

..both of you.. please do this for 30 minutes... then maybe you'll forget about this thread and not need to write a book on each reply.. :cheese:

I'd think by now you'd have both noticed that neither of you will convince the other of your position... :hump:

[Rooster]

Boom, they've changed the guidelines as to what is an acceptable level a few times, each time getting MORE and MORE strict. So don't start on Bush ripping apart the EPA standards. No one breaths a word when they up the standards without telling anyone. But once the results are in.. WAMMO. We're polluters!

What they say is: You're polluting more than ever! You have to cut back!

Truth: pollution today is lower than it was 10 years ago.

But that doesn't sell well with the enviro-nuts or keep the EPA paid (to keep researching). The EPA only has jobs if it creates a problem. Again, all that is being used is picking a number, calling it unacceptable, then adjust your measurement methods to ensure as many areas fall into that category as possible.

There is no evidence at all that a higher CO2 count has any lasting effect, nor that it won't fix itself (which it will).

It would be like Symantec or McAfee hiring virus writers so they can stay in business. The EPA only exists if it can prove there is a problem.

[Canidae]

Heheh.. Pardon the seeming spam, but;

Roo, call me hun, you are not showing on MSN and I need to tell you what the school told me. :)

[Rooster]

Heheh.. Pardon the seeming spam, but;

Roo, call me hun, you are not showing on MSN and I need to tell you what the school told me. :)I'm at PEMA. No MSN here. I'll be home for lunch soon.

use PM next time!

And now back to our regularly scheduled :bang:.

[Canidae]

Don't call me names :bang: :stupid:

[Swifty_Johnson]

You won't show me any proof because you can't. Because it never happened.

I can, but I'm not going to waste my time looking for it becasue you'll just dismiss it as oil company propaganda. I know what happened as I was there, sorry it doesn't go along with your propaganda.

They had no agenda when they collected that data.

You are kidding right?

You are totally talking out of your ass saying the studies are unofficial junk science leaked by an underling.

Unlike you, I do not talk out of my ass. I pointed to ONE example of how a liberal in the EPA leaked data. I did NOT claim every report was posted this way. I didn't even mention which report it was. I just gave an example to rebuke your claim that the EPA is now republican conserative. Talking about twisting words around.

b.t.w. Haven't you forgotten the stink raised when your "Hero" Clinton fired the White House travel office en mass and put his own cronies in place? That's becasue the rank and file jobs in the goverment aren't political. If Bush fired all the looney liberals from the EPA there would have been a hugh stick about it. Unfortuantly for the EPA they are still there and still undermining any credible work they've done.

Yes, you did. Again you are backtracking and trying to twist your own words around just to keep arguing.

The only person twisting things around is you. Please try to understand the meaning of the word MIGHT. In order for me to backtack, I would have to accept the position that global warming IS happening and IS due to mankind, which I contend is possibly not the case. Stopping the destruction of the rain forrest has tons of reasons as being a good idea not releated to global warming.

The only person with a close mind is you Booms, while I accept that there are those that claim global warming is happening, I also accept that others claim it isn't, and others claim that is it but it's happening as a natural function of the earth's cycle. You on the other hand refuse to accept anything other than it's happening and it's all man's fault.

Very short sighted, very narrow thinking.

b.t.w. Do you think that Koyoto will help or hurt the problem and should the U.S. sign on?

Swifty

[Boom]

I can, but I'm not going to waste my time looking for it becasue you'll just dismiss it as oil company propaganda. I know what happened as I was there, sorry it doesn't go along with your propaganda.

:rolleyes:

Stopping the destruction of the rain forrest has tons of reasons as being a good idea not releated to global warming.

Of course I agree with that. But you brought it up in the context of global warming. What are you saying, we were talking about global warming, you were listing things that you think aren't the answer to global warming, then you out of the blue said we should save the rainforests in response to issues we weren't discussing? Like if we were fixing a car and you were saying, "Well, I don't think its a problem with the ignition, so no need to check the timing and clean the points, and the gaskets look good so need to rebuild the headers, but it would be a good step in the right direction to water the tomatos in the backyard." Is that what you are saying happened? You clearly were saying it was "a step in the right direction" regarding global warming. I'm not twisting anything around. You said we shouldn't think for one instance we can effect the climate, but it would be a step in the right direction to save the rainforests. Yes, there are tons of reasons to save the rainforests, but look at your quote, you were talking about global warming.

I'm not convinced the Koyoto deal is the right answer either. We agree on that.

I think the first step is convincing people that its happening. We gotta do that before we figure out how to fix it.

[spyder913]

Boom. Global warming is a theory not fact. Some of those facts support the theory, but honestly there isn't enough historical data to say for sure that global warming is happening.

Swifty. Just because global warming is not necessarily true does not negate some of the facts that Boom stated. Most importantly the CO2 production vs processing. If the atmosphere was somewhat stable to begin with but our input is increased and our output is diminished it's obvious that we're going to end up with a lot more CO2 in the system.

[Rooster]

And therefore flora will flourish and will keep the balance. The earth will take care of itself, it always has, regardless of what humans do.


Boom & Swifty, both yall need to go sit in timeout until you can fight like adults. :p

[Rooster]

Don't call me names :bang: :stupid:Hey, it was funny coming out of my mouth, but not when typed, so I edited it out QUICKLY.

[spyder913]

And therefore flora will flourish and will keep the balance. The earth will take care of itself, it always has, regardless of what humans do.Not if we continue to cut it down faster than it can grow...

[Canidae]

I think thats the first time I used the brick wall thingy...

And not Quick enough hun
:p

[Rooster]

We have a way to cut down algae? It consumes co2... and I'm positive the more co2 there is in the air, the more algae there will be.

"Almost half of the photosynthesis on Earth is carried out by phytoplankton in the sea," Sallie Chisholm of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said in an accompanying article in Nature.

[Swifty_Johnson]

You clearly were saying it was "a step in the right direction" regarding global warming.

I have yet you acknowledge that Global warming is happening, so how can it be a step in the right direction in reguards to Global warming.

Swifty. Just because global warming is not necessarily true does not negate some of the facts that Boom stated. Most importantly the CO2 production vs processing. If the atmosphere was somewhat stable to begin with but our input is increased and our output is diminished it's obvious that we're going to end up with a lot more CO2 in the system.

True, and forrests are great CO2 scrubbers, which is why saving the Amazon rain forrest is a good idea in reguards to air quality.

While the earth MAY be warming, what effects man has on it is still in question. Noone has proved

The Earth is overall warming and weither it's casued by man or not. Lets put it to you this way. If the earth is warming, and it's doing it all on it's own, we will be better prepared if we can adapt to the comming changes, vs trying to stop them thinking we are the cause of it.

Of course, there can be a massive vulcanic eruption that sends us into the next Ice Age, and global warming will be something we will wish for. Funny thing about Mother Nature, you never know what she has planned next.

Swifty

[Jammer]

I hate to interrupt this Battle Royale between Boom and Swifty with such a trivial question, but I was curious about something Harm posted:

Fact: roughly every gallon of fuel you burn adds 24lbs of CO into the surrounding air for all of us to breath.

Can you elaborate on this? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what I'm reading, but that would seem to violate the Law of Conservation of Matter. Also, "lbs" would normally be used to indicate the pressure of a gas, which really has no meaning in this context. For example, Oxygen is 14.7lbs at one atmosphere, but I'm not sure I care. :) I'm not doubting what you are saying, just trying to understand it, since you stated it unequivocally as a fact.

Jammer

[spyder913]

We have a way to cut down algae? It consumes co2... and I'm positive the more co2 there is in the air, the more algae there will be.
if the population of algae goes up instead of the forests that are being cut down.. this will be a change in the environment that boom is talking about

[spyder913]

I hate to interrupt this Battle Royale between Boom and Swifty with such a trivial question, but I was curious about something Harm posted:



Can you elaborate on this? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what I'm reading, but that would seem to violate the Law of Conservation of Matter. Also, "lbs" would normally be used to indicate the pressure of a gas, which really has no meaning in this context. For example, Oxygen is 14.7lbs at one atmosphere, but I'm not sure I care. :) I'm not doubting what you are saying, just trying to understand it, since you stated it unequivocally as a fact.

Jammer


well a gallon of gas is roughly 6 pounds of hydrocarbons.
if we assume it's made up of octane (which it isn't, but we can say on average that hte molecules are somewhat similar to it) then we have C8H18
H H H H H H H H
H-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-H
H H H H H H H H
which means our 6 pounds is 6*(8*12)/((8*12)+(18*1)) or (carbon)/(carbon+hydrogen) = approximately 5 pounds of carbon.

now if the combusion is perfect (HC+O2=CO2+H20) then all of our carbons get 2 oxygens and become CO2
CO2 is (14*1+16*2)/(14*1) = 3.29 times as heavy as an ordinary carbon atom

so our 5 pounds of carbon could become 16.4 pounds of CO2. The 24 could be from a different starting weight of gasoline maybe.. but I saw it as 6 to 7 pounds per gallon. Either way, it's more than you would think, and doesn't disobey conservation because it's using air in the combusion.

[Roscoes_C&W]

You guys are using up alot of resources with this ongoing post. For every post you make 4 lbs of co2 is released into the atmosphere. Please try to conserve your posts fellas. I'm looking out for out planet, why just this past week I planted a couple marijuana plants because I wanted more oxygen for all of you. Of course I end up burning up some of the plant in my bonger which may just negate all the positive effects of my plant that I planted for you all. O well, I tried.

[Rooster]

But, as we all know, carbon doesn't burn 100% efficiently, as we end up with carbon deposits on our valves. And as far as carbon molecules collecting, THAT'S where the bulk of it ends up, as well as in the muffler. Those things don't turn black on their own.

You're still never going to end up with more "pounds" of something after it's consumed. Pounds is weight and you're not actually weighing anything. You're talking about MASS... which is measured in grams/kilograms. English system doesn't really have an equivalent.

So, all in all, it's basically just a big fat number that makes it look like we're polluting.

[]LoL[Harm]

So, all in all, it's basically just a big fat number that makes it look like we're polluting.
And only ignorant people will suck on a tailpipe and tell us its clean air. ;)

Oh, and I didn't research that number 24. I just took it off a site without verifying so it could be way off. I'll do some digging tomorrow on EJC and see if there's any good research on it.

[Rooster]

I have a friend that has a Bachelors of Science in Physics and could reason it out for us.

[spyder913]

But, as we all know, carbon doesn't burn 100% efficiently, as we end up with carbon deposits on our valves. And as far as carbon molecules collecting, THAT'S where the bulk of it ends up, as well as in the muffler. Those things don't turn black on their own.No you're right there is plenty of CO in the mix, but the majority does go out your tailpipe or else you would get HUGE buildup (and the clean burned CO2 is inert, so it wouldn't react)

You're still never going to end up with more "pounds" of something after it's consumed. Pounds is weight and you're not actually weighing anything. You're talking about MASS... which is measured in grams/kilograms. English system doesn't really have an equivalent.
True and not true. Yes for one gallon of gasoline you can end up with more mass after the reaction, but that's only because you aren't counting the mass of the other component, the oxygen. for my calculations the units don't matter, for 6 units of input fuel you end up with 16.4 units of CO2 in a clean burning reaction.

the standard measure of mass is the slug, but people don't use that much because a slug is what defines the pound at standard gravity, so if you use standard gravity you can talk about 'pounds' as mass.

So, all in all, it's basically just a big fat number that makes it look like we're polluting.Yup. It's definitly for shock value =)

[Swifty_Johnson]

What's funny is Koyoto focused on the cutting of production of CO2, not otherways to increase the scrubbing of CO2 by the air. If there was a massive campaign to plant trees and other plants that absorbe CO2, we'd also see a reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The biggest fallacy of Koyoto was the exemption of countries like Mexico and China from these protocols. I don't know what crack pipe was passed around at the confrence, buy by exempting the two countries with the LOWEST paid wages, NOEXISTANT air pollution laws a haven for big companies to open factories was the most ignornat thing to do. If the U.S. signed Koyoto the movement of jobs from teh U.S.A. to mexico and China would increase as companies build factoires there instead of here.

We'd have no jobs in the U.S.A., which means less driving and less CO2! Wow, what a great idea.

Swifty

[]LoL[Harm]

And I think it was Carbon Monoxide that was the 24lbs of, not Carbon Dioxide. But I'm doing some fact finding now.

[]LoL[Harm]

Okay so, I found a report done on both pre-1986 cars and post-1985 cars. I'll just put up the figures for post-1985 cars (cars that have catalytic converters).


It was done in Australia so the figures are in mg/km.

Carbon Monoxide 10mg/km
Carbon Dioxide 244mg/km
Nitrogen Oxides 1.3mg/km
Hyrdocarbons 0.6mg/km

These are the means for 56 (17 were 1991 models) US manufactured cars from differing manufacturers. Full research can be found in Atmospheric Environment, Issue 33 (1999) Pages 291-307.

Another journal I found put it in more of what we want to see, grams per gallon. Journal is Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Issue 33 (1997) Pages 240-252.

A 5 year old car will emit 93.73 grams of CO per gallon of fuel burned. This is just an average that they came to through a method. Here is a portion of their findings:

The agen, which are supposed to estimate the emission deterioration after n years in grams per gallon, are much more plausible. As predicted in 2 , coefficients increase as age increases in all cases except one truck CO in age 12 . The results thus imply that fuel economy affects vehicle emissions, and that the effect becomes stronger as vehicles age. These estimates could no doubt be improved by the estimation of the model on emission data collected at different times. In truth, what we have estimated is the deterioration in emissions of 1990 model-year cars after 1 year, 1989 model year cars after 2 years, etc., leaving open the question of whether emissions in earlier model years were deteriorating more rapidly than emissions in later model years. That is, these estimates unavoidably confound the effects of vintage and vehicle age on the deterioration rate. In addition, vehicle age is itself a decidedly imperfect measure of vehicle wear, which also depends on how and how much the vehicle has been used. Odometer data would have been a valuable addition to the data set, but unfortunately it was not available.(Emphasis mine)

[Rooster]

Good stuff Harm, exactly what I expected to see.

What boggles my mind is the transportation-smart-growth planning people DON'T wanna build better road infrastructure, instead, going for mass transit/trains - that only 1-3% of the people will use. Building roads means better traffic flow resulting in better fuel efficiency resulting in less pollution (for the other 97% of the population!).

It all works out.

edit: On a side note, I heard from a pollution specialist here in Charlotte that they could reduce emissions in our area by 50% if they got rid of 5% of the vehicles, those that are older than 1985... It would cost a helluva lot LESS to buy those cars from their owners (with exceptions for antiques/classics) than it would to implement LIGHT RAIL, or other hair-brained schemes.

[Boom]

Jammer, easy answer to your question. A car's engine doesn't just burn gasoline. It combines gasoline and air and burns them. There is actually a small amount of gas in the combustion chamber and a lot of air. That's how a small amount of gasoline produces such a large amount of exhaust. If you put a gallon of gas in your car, pull into the garage, shut the doors, and start the engine, that one small gallon of gas will produce enough exhaust to fill the garage and make it unsafe to be in there. Actually, it would probably take a lot less then a gallon, even with a pretty big garage. This is because the real fuel for the car is not just one gallon of gas, it is also a very large amount of air.

Light a match and put a cup over it. The match goes out real fast because within a few seconds it uses up all the air inside the cup. Even if there is plenty of wood fuel left to burn, it is out of air fuel.

[Rooster]

Correction boom, it doesn't use all the air, it uses all the oxygen.

But I think your estimation of how much fuel would displace a garage worth of space is off. I've run our van in a garage (4 car) and while it smelled, it wasn't toxic. Course, I can't say it burned a gallon, that's a LOT of idle time.

[spyder913]

harm there is way more CO2 produced than CO unless your engine is having serious problems =)

[]LoL[Harm]

No doubt, but I'm more concerned with CO, not CO2. CO is very deadly, much more so than CO2. And is linked along side of NOx's as cancer causing agents.

And as the stats I put above, CO2 shoves out at 24 times the rate of CO in the mg/km measurements.