Global Warming? are humans to blame?

[stonebreaker]

Originally Posted by alan white

Anyway, thanks for the conversation, SB.

It's over. I apologize for messing with your head. I was sure all along you wouldn't understand what I was saying. That's not your fault.
Alan

Of course it's not my fault. You were unable to string together a coherent argument.

If you want to quit, then quit, but don't try to save face by pretending to be smarter than you are. You're polite, but you're not very good at logical thought.

[Mychael]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

. This act and its subsequent amendments, has among other things, eliminated all TEL (lead) from motor fuels.
Jimbo

Happy to be corrected if I am wrong but I seem to recall reading or hearing somewhere that sure, we've removed the "evil" lead (and I accept too much is bad) but in it's place they have added other compounds, Benzene? being one which are carcinogenic. We might have been better off with the lead.
So are we yet really doing anything "smarter" or just moving the goalposts to appear as if industry and government are really trying??
Mychael

[stonebreaker]

Originally Posted by Mychael

Happy to be corrected if I am wrong but I seem to recall reading or hearing somewhere that sure, we've removed the "evil" lead (and I accept too much is bad) but in it's place they have added other compounds, Benzene? being one which are carcinogenic. We might have been better off with the lead.
So are we yet really doing anything "smarter" or just moving the goalposts to appear as if industry and government are really trying??
Mychael

No, benzene has always been there. What they did to remove the lead was use different parts in engines - much harder valve seats being the main thing, as the lead acted as a luricant on the exhaust valve/seat interface.

As far as doing anything "smarter", they're trying to get ethanol in use, but in truth it's not possible to make enough of it to replace gasoline completely. So the next big push is hydrogen, either in fuel cells or internal combustion engines. Hydrogen is actually a really fantastic fuel. You can burn it in your car, and because it has such a high octane rating, you can run 15:1 compression, which translates into better efficiency; plus, once they get fuel cell technology to a practical point, you can 'go off the grid' with your own solar/wind generator and use fuel cells in place of batteries... plus generate extra hydrogen to run your cars. Of course, I doubt everyone will want to add 20-30 thousand to the price of their homes, nevermind finding room for all those windmills, so I doubt the power company has much to worry about from that standpoint.

[alan white]

Originally Posted by stonebreaker

Of course it's not my fault. You were unable to string together a coherent argument.

If you want to quit, then quit, but don't try to save face by pretending to be smarter than you are. You're polite, but you're not very good at logical thought.

No, I guess you beat me. I completely underestimated you. I wish I could be like you. It must be wonderful.

Alan

[stonebreaker]

Originally Posted by alan white

No, I guess you beat me. I completely underestimated you. I wish I could be like you. It must be wonderful.

Alan

It IS good to be me, but that's beside the point. Let me clue you in to something. Back (waaaay, waaaay back) when I was a kid, my little brother used to try the "I'm winning, I'm winning!" ploy when I was kicking his butt at chess or giving him a swirly or whatever. It was a desperation move then and it's a desperation move now; so, far from pulling victory from the mouth of defeat, you actually just showed weakness. You know this, and I know this; and no one else really gives a crap.

[bonatèr]

Originally Posted by stonebreaker

It IS good to be me, but that's beside the point. Let me clue you in to something. Back (waaaay, waaaay back) when I was a kid, my little brother used to try the "I'm winning, I'm winning!" ploy when I was kicking his butt at chess or giving him a swirly or whatever. It was a desperation move then and it's a desperation move now; so, far from pulling victory from the mouth of defeat, you actually just showed weakness. You know this, and I know this; and no one else really gives a crap.

If being right is your goal,
you may find error in the world,
and seek to change it to match your expectations.
But don't expect peace of mind.

If peace of mind is your goal,
look for errors in your expectations;
seek to change them, not the world.
And always be prepared to be wrong.

[Mychael]

I am a big fan of ethanol, you get plant growth (which is good) to produce it , then you have a clean fuel.. I was still under the impression that when they took lead out of the current petrol fuel that they since added something which is carcinogenic.. Also the current petrol and catalytic converters produce sulphur dioxide.

Mychael

[stonebreaker]

Yeah, that's from sulfur in the fuel, particularly diesel. Gasoline over here has had less sulfur in it for years, but they're only just beginning to phase in low sulphur diesel. I'm not sure why diesel needs sulfur in it.

[westlawn5554X]

CPO next

[Jimbo1490]

I imagine the ones who will lose their jobs first will be the ones who make, market, and sell the things that contribute most to the pollution.
There will be a lot of collateral damage too. It will be very hard, especially for those who can't relocate.
Its effects will resonate through the entire economy.

Absolutely laughable assumption

Cheap energy is essential to our way of life which includes cheap housing, clothing, food, heating and air conditioning and innumerable other things, all of which will skyrocket in price if energy prices shoot up.

Since we all use these things every day, we will all take a big hit.

As with any of this type of upheaval, the poorest, with very little difference in outcome depending on exactly what they do for a living, will pay the highest cost. Can you imagine if heating oil and electricity get real expensive, what will happen? Poor people will just burn wood in fireplaces to keep warm in colder climates, even in industrialized countries. Imagine how far that will set us back on clean air progress

The poorest countries will pay a much higher price than wealthy ones, also.



Jimbo

[alan white]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Absolutely laughable assumption

Cheap energy is essential to our way of life which includes cheap housing, clothing, food, heating and air conditioning and innumerable other things, all of which will skyrocket in price if energy prices shoot up.

Since we all use these things every day, we will all take a big hit.

As with any of this type of upheaval, the poorest, with very little difference in outcome depending on exactly what they do for a living, will pay the highest cost. Can you imagine if heating oil and electricity get real expensive, what will happen? Poor people will just burn wood in fireplaces to keep warm in colder climates, even in industrialized countries. Imagine how far that will set us back on clean air progress

The poorest countries will pay a much higher price than wealthy ones, also.



Jimbo

Jimbo, it is obvious that what you said after calling what I said a laughable assumption, is practically the same thing. Here's the whole passage, unedited:

"I imagine the ones who will lose their jobs first will be the ones who make, market, and sell the things that contribute most to the pollution.
There will be a lot of collateral damage too. It will be very hard, especially for those who can't relocate.
Its effects will resonate through the entire economy.

As usual, the ones who suffer most will be the ones who are simply trying to get along."

Which sounds a lot like what you said: "As with any of this type of upheaval, the poorest, with very little difference in outcome depending on exactly what they do for a living, will pay the highest cost."

It is one thing to disagree, and hear such things as "laughable", which is rude and childish, but I apparently can't even agree with you!

This whole thread is laughable where you and Stonebreaker are concerned. It is impossible to have a grownup dialogue with people who are so combative in their reactions that they actually claim to disagree with themselves!

I don't mean to be rude, but really... aren't the two of you kind of embarrassed by your negative reactionary comments? Maybe it would make sense to actually read what I'm saying!?

Alan

[Mychael]

The market needs to change. It does not neccessarliy have to suffer a major downturn.
Too many people drive cars bigger then they require. But people still need cars, so makers could make more small cars then large ones so they will still be producing cars.
I swapped from wood heating to gas, so instead of making more wood/combustion heaters they can make gas ones. There are probably more examples. allready there have sprung up more and more companies making gas conversion kits for cars, that's more work and also good for the economy.

We just don't need to be as excessivley consumer orientated as we are. I do my best to avoid it, I drive a 12 yr old 1.3 litre car, I don't need a new car so I don't buy one, I refuse to get in Microsofts designed obsolesence , I just replace what breaks rather then put the whole computer in the dumpster and buy a new one.
All small things I know but if we all did that.......

Mychael

[alan white]

Thanks, Mychael, for expressing what I see as the only significant action an individual can take to clean things up.
Also for your comments on a thread about anti-fouling. It's not whether you can get it legally---- it's what's in the can that matters.

I hear a lot of arguments about what causes global warming (or whether it exists) and I wonder what value there is in squabbling over a simple definition of the problem.
It is lifestyle. I heard on the news today that despite China's massive industrial structure, they have yet to reach America's contribution to what are considered the prime suspects in climate change.
This I heard, and it is not a statement I myself know to be correct or incorrect.
The point is that pollution is not only bad, it's unnecessary. One would think that they might drop dead on the spot if industry were to slow down a bit.
I'd personally like to see the worst polluters (and I see the end consumer as belonging to that group) be the ones to pay the piper, and not me or you or a lot of other people who live intelligently (or as intelligently as they can within the context of a system that practically promotes rampant consumerism).
Unfortunately, everyone will pay a price. You, me, and a lot of people who are caught in the middle, most who have no choice because they are up against it every day just to get by.
Lexus, I think, just announced a 435 hp hybrid for the ones who can most easily afford to change lifestyles. Wha....? No, the rich won't suffer.
John Anderson ran against Regan in 1980, I think it was. He ran on an agenda to add 10 cents per year tax, a gradual and easy to take increase that wouldn't have hurt the economy one bit.
Instead, average gas mileage is WORSE than twenty years ago, and so our consequent reliance on imported oil has hurt the economy far more than if we'd been realistic and done what we should have.
And here we are, and it amazes me that most people still don't get ut.

alan

[Frosty]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6532323.stm

BBc today ---its coming

[Jimbo1490]

Yeah and the Chevy Corvette has over 400Hp and gets 30 MPG but SO WHAT!!! You are talking about measures that are like trying to sweep back the tide with a freaking BROOM! If adding a mere 3% more CO2 to the atmosphere (BION, that's all we do) is causing the whole global climate system to go out of whack, then cutting a couple of percent OF THAT 3% is totally MEANINGLESS! And there is NO PROPOSAL ANYWHERE to cut it 90% or more! What benefit is there to cutting our contribution from 3.225% to 3.1285%? Do you think everything will just be hunky-dory then!!??

I know, I know, "But we must do SOMETHING"

Jimbo