Jump to content

Plug - in hybrids are the car industries Wolf in Sheep's Clothing Has anyone heard anything about this headline I saw ?


Recommended Posts

Hard and verifiable data indicates the Earth has been warming of late. Hard and accepted data also indicates the Earth has both cooled and warmed repeatedly, as it pleased, without the hand of Man's influence.

It is likely that Man's contribution of late is having some effect on climate.

That's where the facts end and the speculation begins. Said speculation is rife with political, professional, financial, and ego driven agendas.

Just as figures don't lie. Liars can most assuredly figure.

Believe any settled "facts" at your own peril.

Said "facts" are as likely to be spun bullshit as spun gold.......................Bob

 

 

Edited by Bhigdog (see edit history)
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

There has to be a way to harness all that heat energy stored up in black interiors with the windows rolled up on hot summer days...and maybe also harness energy from the SCREAMS of the people wearing shorts who sat in them. (It seems to me that screams should be a valid source of energy: I usually feel pretty worn out after screaming too long. 😄)

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, auburnseeker said:

The problem is not matter what we do, Mother nature will do what she wants and all our efforts will be in vain. The carbon footprint of the fires right now is bigger than I'll bet the citizens of this country will be for the next several years. Be good stewards of the environment but maintain a balance between decimating our economy to become green and making the country prosper enough to compete against countries that couldn't care less, or one day you will wake up to find out they just surpassed you and are now in control.  It's like waging a war.  If you play on a more civilized playing field than the enemy under the guise that they will play fair because you are,  they will ultimately win or you will face incredible levels of casualties they don't.  The American revolution comes to mind.  Do you want to be the British troops in neatly formed columns or do you want to be the guys nailing your troops from the shadows. 

 

You're wrong on so many levels....

 

"The problem is not matter what we do, Mother nature will do what she wants and all our efforts will be in vain. "
Science contradicts that.

 

"The carbon footprint of the fires right now is bigger than I'll bet the citizens of this country will be for the next several years."

BECAUSE of global warming. 

"balance between decimating our economy to become green "
I challenge you to show your sources that becoming green will decimate our economy - then show me the cost of NOT going green. There are costs either way.

 

"making the country prosper enough to compete against countries that couldn't care less"
Just look at the chart i posted above.  China has 3x more green energy that we do.   Every major country is the world is committed to reducing global warming - EXCEPT THE USA!

 

"If you play on a more civilized playing field than the enemy under the guise that they will ultimately win or you will face incredible levels of casualties they don't.  The American revolution comes to mind.  Do you want to be the British troops in neatly formed columns or do you want to be the guys nailing your troops from the shadows. "

Your analogy is wrong.  This is NOT us against them. This is NOT war.  It's 1 world, 1 planet. We are all in this together.  But if you want a war analogy... great... here's a more accurate one. What if the USA sat it out during WW2 and expected Great Britain, France, Soviet Union, China  and virtually the rest of the world to defeat Germany and Japan? Guten Tag.

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bhigdog said:

Hard and verifiable data indicates the Earth has been warming of late. Hard and accepted data also indicates the Earth has both cooled and warmed repeatedly, as it pleased, without the hand of Man's influence.

It is likely that Man's contribution of late is having some effect on climate.

That's where the facts end and the speculation begins. Said speculation is rife with political, professional, financial, and ego driven agendas.

Just as figures don't lie. Liars can most assuredly figure.

Believe any settled "facts" at your own peril.

Said "facts" are as likely to be spun bullshit as spun gold.......................Bob

 

 

 

You cant have it both ways.  
 

On one hand you say:

"Hard and verifiable data indicates the Earth has been warming of late. Hard and accepted data also indicates the Earth has both cooled and warmed repeatedly, as it pleased, without the hand of Man's influence."

On the other hand you say: "

It is likely that Man's contribution of late is having some effect on climate.

That's where the facts end and the speculation begins. Said speculation is rife with political, professional, financial, and ego driven agendas.

Just as figures don't lie. Liars can most assuredly figure.

Believe any settled "facts" at your own peril.

Said "facts" are as likely to be spun bullshit as spun gold"

 

So you believe and trust one source, but not the other source. (or ironically, the same source)

So you trust the initial sources that tell you the earth and cooled and warmed repeatedly.

But you don't trust sources when they tell you the earth is warming at a pace not in pattern with previous cycles and why?

 

"You cant have your cake and eat it too."

 

climate-change-meme.jpg

 

Screen Shot 2020-09-18 at 4.34.48 PM.png

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Peter Gariepy said:

So you believe and trust one source, but not the other source. (or ironically, the same source)

So you trust the initial sources that tell you the earth and cooled and warmed repeatedly.

But you don't trust sources when they tell you the earth is warming at a pace not in pattern with previous cycles?

Doesn't work that way. "You cant have your cake and eat it too."

 

Read what I said:

Not what you think I said.

 

BTW.

What happened to your "NO POLITICS".... "ONLY CARS" edict.

And yet here you are up to your arm pitts in green politics.

Global warfare.

And petty arguments that can't be proved one way or the other.

 

OK for me but not for thee?

 

Kind of reminds me of Nancy whats her face..............Bob

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Bhigdog said:

Read what I said:

Not what you think I said.

 

BTW.

What happened to your "NO POLITICS".... "ONLY CARS" edict.

And yet here you are up to your arm pitts in green politics.

Global warfare.

And petty arguments that can't be proved one way or the other.

 

OK for me but not for thee?

 

Kind of reminds me of Nancy whats her face..............Bob

 

 

Going Green is encouraging our government on policy, not politics.

 

"Going green" means to pursue knowledge and practices that can lead to more environmentally friendly and ecologically responsible decisions and lifestyles, which can help protect the environment and sustain its natural resources for current and future generations.

 

Hybrid cars are an extension of green policy.  Some are good. Some, not so good. Same with Wind, Solar and other green sources.  Just like Gas/CNG/Coal/Nuclear are not political positions. 

 

We chose as a country to join our allies in a global war that effected EVERYONE. Not political or partisan.  For the good of our country, and the world.  

 

Nowhere in my posts do I endorse or condemn a party or politician.  (But you have)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Peter Gariepy said:

 

Please, restate it so I better understand.

As i told you once before, peter, you are interested in a pissing contest. I don,t do pissing contests....bob

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Bhigdog said:

As i told you once before, peter, you are interested in a pissing contest. I don,t do pissing contests....bob

 

Forgive me oh "Grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler",

I read what you said: here is what what I think you said.

"Here are my facts.... they are indisputable.   I don't listen to others opinions. They are wrong, I am right."

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Peter Gariepy said:

Educate yourself before blinding calling it hype.

 

It isn't happening anywhere around me. And I do remember the hype.

We were talking fuel cells here by the way.

Do you have any of those stations in your neighborhood? Or any friends that drive those vehicles?

 

 I believe we are banned form this kind of banter as it seems political to me.

Moderator might need a nap.

Edited by JACK M (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, auburnseeker said:

Mother nature will do what she wants and all our efforts will be in vain. The carbon footprint of the fires right now is bigger than I'll bet the citizens of this country will be for the next several years.

   I would agree and to put things even more in perspective I've read the one average size volcanic eruption negates everything man has done for the last 10 years to clean up the environment.

   I wonder how much of a carbon footprint the production of a wind turbine is. We know that they aren't made from fairy dust not to mention hauling them all over the country to set them up. I'm also pretty sure that all the electrical cable and towers aren't found under toadstools.

   It's the same way with ethanol. The supporters don't even want to tell you how many BTU's it takes to turn a bushel of corn into ethanol or how many gallons of fuel was burned raising that corn and hauling it to the plant. Not to mention the reduction in gas mileage and the damage it does to older equipment.

  And if you really want to get fried do a little investigation into how many billions of tax payers dollars go into keeping just these two endeavors functioning. Sorry for the rant but I get sick of programs like these based on misinformation being shoved down the tax payers throats. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Fossil said:

   I would agree and to put things even more in perspective I've read the one average size volcanic eruption negates everything man has done for the last 10 years to clean up the environment.

We are getting WAY in the weeds here, but this is a common misconception about volcanos and their minor contribution (and detraction) to Global Warming. The facts are that humans outgas CO2 at a far larger rate than all of the volcanos in a given year combined, and do it on a continual basis.   Here's a well-documented source (not just something "..I've read..") outlining what the SCIENTISTS at the United States Geological Survey (Volcanologist, specifically) say about the matter:

Volcanoes Can Affect Climate

Volcanic gases react with the atmosphere in various ways; the conve...

Volcanic gases react with the atmosphere in various ways; the conversion of sulfur dioxide (SO2) to sulfuric acid (H2SO4has the most significant impact on climate.

(Public domain.)

Volcanoes can impact climate change. During major explosive eruptions huge amounts of volcanic gas, aerosol droplets, and ash are injected into the stratosphere. Injected ash falls rapidly from the stratosphere -- most of it is removed within several days to weeks -- and has little impact on climate change. But volcanic gases like sulfur dioxide can cause global cooling, while volcanic carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, has the potential to promote global warming.

Sulfate aerosols can cool the climate and deplete Earth's ozone layer

The most significant climate impacts from volcanic injections into the stratosphere come from the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfuric acid, which condenses rapidly in the stratosphere to form fine sulfate aerosols. The aerosols increase the reflection of radiation from the Sun back into space, cooling the Earth's lower atmosphere or troposphere.

Several eruptions during the past century have caused a decline in the average temperature at the Earth's surface of up to half a degree (Fahrenheit scale) for periods of one to three years. The climactic eruption of Mount Pinatubo on June 15, 1991, was one of the largest eruptions of the twentieth century and injected a 20-million ton (metric scale) sulfur dioxide cloud into the stratosphere at an altitude of more than 20 miles. The Pinatubo cloud was the largest sulfur dioxide cloud ever observed in the stratosphere since the beginning of such observations by satellites in 1978. It caused what is believed to be the largest aerosol disturbance of the stratosphere in the twentieth century, though probably smaller than the disturbances from eruptions of Krakatau in 1883 and Tambora in 1815. Consequently, it was a standout in its climate impact and cooled the Earth's surface for three years following the eruption, by as much as 1.3 degrees F at the height of the impact.

The June 12, 1991 eruption column from Mount Pinatubo taken from the east side of Clark Air Base.

The June 12, 1991 eruption column from Mount Pinatubo taken from the east side of Clark Air Base.

(Public domain.)

The large 1783-1784 Laki fissure eruption in Iceland released a staggering amount more sulfur dioxide than Pinatubo (approximately 120-million ton vs. 20). Although the two eruptions were significantly different in length and style, the added atmospheric SO2 caused regional cooling of Europe and North America by similar amounts for similar periods of time.

Do the Earth's volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? No.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas and is the primary gas blamed for climate change. While sulfur dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has occasionally caused detectable global cooling of the lower atmosphere, the carbon dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has never caused detectable global warming of the atmosphere. In 2010, human activities were responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions. All studies to date of global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day subaerial and submarine volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities. While it has been proposed that intense volcanic release of carbon dioxide in the deep geologic past did cause global warming, and possibly some mass extinctions, this is a topic of scientific debate at present.

Published scientific estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates.

There is no question that very large volcanic eruptions can inject significant amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens vented approximately 10 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in only 9 hours. However, it currently takes humanity only 2.5 hours to put out the same amount. While large explosive eruptions like this are rare and only occur globally every 10 years or so, humanity's emissions are ceaseless and increasing every year.

There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions.

For additional information about this subject, please read the American Geophysical Union's Eos article "Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide" written by USGS scientist Terrence M. Gerlach.

Yearly CO2 emitters Billion metric tons per year (Gt/y)
Global volcanic emissions (highest preferred estimate)     0.26
Anthropogenic CO2 from fuel combustion 2015+ 32.3
Worldwide Road Transportation 2015+   5.8
Approximately 24 1000-megawatt coal-fired power stations *     0.22
Argentina 2015+     0.19
Poland 2015+     0.28
United States 2015+     4.99

 

CO2 emission events  
Mount St. Helens, 18 May 1980 0.01 Gt
Mount Pinatubo, 15 June 1991 0.05 Gt
Number of Pinatubo-equivalent eruptions equal to 2010 global anthropogenic CO2 700
Number of Mount St. Helens-equivalent eruptions equal to 2010 global anthropogenic CO2 3500

 

2010 global anthropogenic CO2 multiplier (ACM)**   135
1950 ACM    38
1900 ACM    18
Number of days for anthropogenic CO2 to equal a year's worth of global volcanism       2.7

* Equal to 2% of the world's coal-fired electricity-generating capacity. 
**Ratio of annual anthropogenic CO2 (approximately 35 Gt) to maximum preferred estimate for annual volcanic CO2
+2015 data from IEA CO2 Emissions From Fuel Combustion 2017 edition. 

For additional information about climate change, visit the USGS Climate and Land Use Change Mission Area 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgot the link:

 

https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/volcano-hazards/volcanoes-can-affect-climate#:~:text=Volcanoes can impact climate change,are injected into the stratosphere.&text=But volcanic gases like sulfur,potential to promote global warming.

 

It should be noted that while fossil fuel derived CO2 rates will vary slightly year to year with an overall increase from decade to decade, this years output has been lessened slightly by the impact of the CoViD-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, it is still above the 2015 numbers cited in this paper, which skewers the current (and future) CO2 source amounts even further away from a volcanic origin and more towards a unmistakably anthropocentric one.

 

 

Wait, this ISNT the Geology/Climatology Nerds forum???

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're political beliefs makes it impossible to discuss a non political problem that just about every country in the world except one political party in America agrees is a serious problem, maybe its time to re check your belief's. Either you're leaders are lying to you or the entire world is in on the scam. Which seems most likely?

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, JACK M said:

 

I remember all the hype, never happened.

 

Many public transportation agencies across the United States use hybrid and alternative fuel busses in their fleets and have done so for MANY YEARS. I see the local bus company's hybrid busses at least a few times a week every week on the bus route in my area so their existence is something that one cannot deny no matter how hard one tries to.

Hybrid Bus #1.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Fossil said:

   I would agree and to put things even more in perspective I've read the one average size volcanic eruption negates everything man has done for the last 10 years to clean up the environment.

   I wonder how much of a carbon footprint the production of a wind turbine is. We know that they aren't made from fairy dust not to mention hauling them all over the country to set them up. I'm also pretty sure that all the electrical cable and towers aren't found under toadstools.

   It's the same way with ethanol. The supporters don't even want to tell you how many BTU's it takes to turn a bushel of corn into ethanol or how many gallons of fuel was burned raising that corn and hauling it to the plant. Not to mention the reduction in gas mileage and the damage it does to older equipment.

  And if you really want to get fried do a little investigation into how many billions of tax payers dollars go into keeping just these two endeavors functioning. Sorry for the rant but I get sick of programs like these based on misinformation being shoved down the tax payers throats. 

 

So your saying that since the alternatives arent perfect and dont solve 100% of the problem with no compromises we just shouldn't even try? 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bhigdog said:

As i told you once before, peter, you are interested in a pissing contest. I don,t do pissing contests....bob

 

Well the important thing is that you have found a way to feel superior to everyone else without even having to look at any facts or form a real opinion .

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

To say that the forest fires in the west are solely due to global warming is a gross misstatement.

 

Do some research.  The current management policies for fighting forest fires goes back to the great fires of 1910.

 

Since then, the philosophy has been try to put the fires out.  That’s sounds good on the surface, but it’s not how nature wants it.  Forest fires are a way of both consuming fuel (that otherwise accumulates as it has) and generating new growth.  Aspen seeds, for example, have to be heated by a fire in order to sprout.  After a fire, nature takes care of displaced animals by soon growing green vegetation on the forest ground.

 

Yellowstone Park is an example of proper management of forests.  The policy at that park is don’t fight a forest fire, let it burn as nature intended, only intervene when life or property is endangered.  THAT’S how a forest will take care of itself, have relatively minor fires every now and then, and control itself.  Accumulating years and years of fuel on the forest floor leads to huge and devastating fires as we now have.

 

People love to blame either climate change or  current politicians, but the real culprit is the incorrect management of forests, all beginning in 1910.

 

As to power and electricity, the United States got scared of nuclear power plants, and that’s a mistake in the long run. France, for example, gets 75% of its power from nuclear plants, though they do plan to reduce that somewhat in the coming years with alternate power sources.  There’s no free ride on power.  Windmills are great, but kill tens of thousands of birds every year.  Solar is great, but right now it takes at least 8 years to recover your investment (8 year payback).  In addition, power per panel is small so large areas are needed for significant generation. Being exposed and fragile, panels are subject to damage.  At one time life of solar panels was fairly short, though that has improved.
 

We will always have fossil fuel, because even if we eliminate all gasoline powered cars, we still need grease and oil and asphalt. Gasoline is a by-product of Production of those things, so what do you do with it if we don’t use it?  In the 1800’s when refining was viable, there was no use for it so it was dumped on the ground or in streams, A solution we would cringe at today.
 

Ethanol is an ecological disaster, with land cleared, fertilizer plants built to support corn growth, the resultant pollution and such.  I won’t go further on that one.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

David, that's one of the best summaries I've read. Kudos.

 

The problem with climate change/ethanol/racism/guns/yadayada is that it has ALL become highly politicized and there are a lot of people who have a vested interest in keeping such topics on high boil. These topics are their [often lucrative] meal ticket and they ain't about to let it go.

 

After a while you go numb to the constant blather and it all blurs together. Then reasoned discussion can't happen.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, charlier said:

 

Many public transportation agencies across the United States use hybrid and alternative fuel busses in their fleets and have done so for MANY YEARS. I see the local bus company's hybrid busses at least a few times a week every week on the bus route in my area so their existence is something that one cannot deny no matter how hard one tries to.

Hybrid Bus #1.jpg

 

My comment was in reference to the hydrogen fuel cells, That's different than hybrid. And as far as I know it never did happen.

How many people do you know that are running these hydrogen cells and how many fuel stations are in your neighbor hood. I suspect few if any.

 

 

Edited by JACK M (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, rocketraider said:

David, that's one of the best summaries I've read. Kudos.

 

The problem with climate change/ethanol/racism/guns/yadayada is that it has ALL become highly politicized and there are a lot of people who have a vested interest in keeping such topics on high boil. These topics are their [often lucrative] meal ticket and they ain't about to let it go.

 

After a while you go numb to the constant blather and it all blurs together. Then reasoned discussion can't happen.

 

I have no skin in the game other than I'd like to leave a livable planet to future generations. I have no political motives.  My position doesnt not line my pockets.

Our collective house is burning.  WE don't have the luxury of becoming numb to it. Arguing over how it caught on fire in not relevant... how to put out the flames is.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Peter Gariepy said:

Arguing over how it caught on fire in not relevant... how to put out the flames is.

 

Well, I disagree, history and causes is what's most relevant.  One wants to understand how the fire started in the first place, so that preventive measures can be put in place so it doesn't happen again.

 

The long term solution to forest fires is let them burn, except in areas where they endanger people or property.  It's easy to look at millions of acres burned (which happens every year, by the way, just look at forest service reporting), but one has to look at WHAT burns...a lot of that acreage is wasteland where fuel has accumulated, or scrub brush acreage.

 

OK, want to reduce vehicle pollution?  Tell Americans they can only drive their car two days a week.  That'll work just as well as asking them to wear a mask, the very thing Americans value most, freedom to do as they please, is a bed thing for mitigation.

 

Want to REALLY change the world?  Discuss population control, it's over population that's causing a lot of the world problems right now, and it will get exponentially worse in the coming years.  But, it's not politically correct, so it's not discussed....

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

M

1 hour ago, Peter Gariepy said:

what?

The reference is to 1815 Mount Tambora eruption. The volcano was in Indonesia but eruption affected weather worldwide, dampening Mary Shelley's spring 1816 Italian vacation. They were housebound due to cold stormy weather and started telling horror stories to pass the time. From that, the Frankenstein story was born.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, billorn said:

So your saying that since the alternatives arent perfect and dont solve 100% of the problem with no compromises we just shouldn't even try? 

   

Not at all. If you will reread the last sentence of my post you will see what irks me is having these programs based on misinformation being funded by the tax payers. For example, when the original legislation for Ethanol was written up no products that could or would be used for human consumption should be used in the manufacture of Ethanol. The use of agricultural "byproducts" was to be the raw material used in it's production. These to include corn stalks, grain stubble and such. This was in response to the outcry from consumers who were concerned that food prices would go up if things like sugar and corn were used. Well you can see how that turned out. This is the sort of BS  that upsets me. That and the fact that Ethanol itself is not what it was cracked up to be. 

 

2 hours ago, trimacar said:

As to power and electricity, the United States got scared of nuclear power plants, and that’s a mistake in the long run. France, for example, gets 75% of its power from nuclear plants, though they do plan to reduce that somewhat in the coming years with alternate power sources.  There’s no free ride on power.

 

Absolutely correct. Our knowledge nuclear power production is far beyond what it was when most of those plants were built and the facilities could be built much safer now. It's the people with "hand wringer" mentalities that have killed this source of power. I haven't followed up on this for awhile but the main concern was what to do the the nuclear waste. Has that ever been addressed yet?  

   

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

IMNSHO Bazil was able to change to alcohol propulsion because they had an abundance of ethanol producing plants that have 7 times the efficiency of corn.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, billorn said:

If you're political beliefs makes it impossible to discuss a non political problem that just about every country in the world except one political party in America agrees is a serious problem, maybe its time to re check your belief's. Either you're leaders are lying to you or the entire world is in on the scam. Which seems most likely?

Also see "Occam's Razor".

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, padgett said:

IMNSHO Bazil was able to change to alcohol propulsion because they had an abundance of ethanol producing plants that have 7 times the efficiency of corn.

Leave it to them Bazillions to figure out how to use their extra yerba-mate!🤪

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, trimacar said:

 

Well, I disagree, history and causes is what's most relevant.  One wants to understand how the fire started in the first place, so that preventive measures can be put in place so it doesn't happen again.

 

The long term solution to forest fires is let them burn, except in areas where they endanger people or property.  It's easy to look at millions of acres burned (which happens every year, by the way, just look at forest service reporting), but one has to look at WHAT burns...a lot of that acreage is wasteland where fuel has accumulated, or scrub brush acreage.

 

OK, want to reduce vehicle pollution?  Tell Americans they can only drive their car two days a week.  That'll work just as well as asking them to wear a mask, the very thing Americans value most, freedom to do as they please, is a bed thing for mitigation.

 

Want to REALLY change the world?  Discuss population control, it's over population that's causing a lot of the world problems right now, and it will get exponentially worse in the coming years.  But, it's not politically correct, so it's not discussed....

 

  • Fires are just a minor symptom of a much much bigger problem.  And Anecdotal.
  • Vehicle pollution - we've been cutting back vehicle emissions and increasing fuel economy since the 1960s. Today vehicle emissions are exponentially clearer than 50 years ago, and average fuel economy has almost tripled. Site benefits include vehicle deaths per mile are down by 50%.
  • Population control - no knowledge or opinion.

BUT YOU MISSED THE BIG POINT ENTIRELY:  You missed my fire analogy.  The HOUSE IS IN FIRE = GLOBAL WARMING.  I was not referring to the recent fires, their "exact" cause, or a solution.

 

"One wants to understand how the fire started in the first place, so that preventive measures can be put in place" - Science has been discussing Global Warming for 30 years.  A friendly reminder.   Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" documentary came out 15 years ago.  We know how the fires (Global Warming) started.  The time for preventive measures is NOW.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JACK M said:

 

My comment was in reference to the hydrogen fuel cells, That's different than hybrid. And as far as I know it never did happen.

How many people do you know that are running these hydrogen cells and how many fuel stations are in your neighbor hood. I suspect few if any.

 

 

I know someone who has a Toyota Mirai which is a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. And I've seen some others on the highway. They exist.

 

I personally have some doubts about the technology, specifically in the area of high pressure storage of hydrogen. But that is a whole different topic about whether they exist or not.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but am of an age that equated hydrogen with the US decision not to sell Germany helium which led to the Lakehurst incident.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, trimacar said:

To say that the forest fires in the west are solely due to global warming is a gross misstatement.

 

Do some research.  The current management policies for fighting forest fires goes back to the great fires of 1910.

 

Since then, the philosophy has been try to put the fires out.  That’s sounds good on the surface, but it’s not how nature wants it.  Forest fires are a way of both consuming fuel (that otherwise accumulates as it has) and generating new growth.  Aspen seeds, for example, have to be heated by a fire in order to sprout.  After a fire, nature takes care of displaced animals by soon growing green vegetation on the forest ground.

 

Yellowstone Park is an example of proper management of forests.  The policy at that park is don’t fight a forest fire, let it burn as nature intended, only intervene when life or property is endangered.  THAT’S how a forest will take care of itself, have relatively minor fires every now and then, and control itself.  Accumulating years and years of fuel on the forest floor leads to huge and devastating fires as we now have.

 

People love to blame either climate change or  current politicians, but the real culprit is the incorrect management of forests, all beginning in 1910.

 

As to power and electricity, the United States got scared of nuclear power plants, and that’s a mistake in the long run. France, for example, gets 75% of its power from nuclear plants, though they do plan to reduce that somewhat in the coming years with alternate power sources.  There’s no free ride on power.  Windmills are great, but kill tens of thousands of birds every year.  Solar is great, but right now it takes at least 8 years to recover your investment (8 year payback).  In addition, power per panel is small so large areas are needed for significant generation. Being exposed and fragile, panels are subject to damage.  At one time life of solar panels was fairly short, though that has improved.
 

We will always have fossil fuel, because even if we eliminate all gasoline powered cars, we still need grease and oil and asphalt. Gasoline is a by-product of Production of those things, so what do you do with it if we don’t use it?  In the 1800’s when refining was viable, there was no use for it so it was dumped on the ground or in streams, A solution we would cringe at today.
 

Ethanol is an ecological disaster, with land cleared, fertilizer plants built to support corn growth, the resultant pollution and such.  I won’t go further on that one.

Yea why aren't they out there raking the forest to stop the fires like the cave men and indians did? After all the same guy who said raking the forests was the answer also said tree's explode. Guess its settled.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dustycrusty said:

We are getting WAY in the weeds here, but this is a common misconception about volcanos and their minor contribution (and detraction) to Global Warming. The facts are that humans outgas CO2 at a far larger rate than all of the volcanos in a given year combined, and do it on a continual basis. 

I did not say anything about global warming or cooling in my post about Volcanos. Only that they tend to pollute the environment.  

 

18 hours ago, Fossil said:

I would agree and to put things even more in perspective I've read the one average size volcanic eruption negates everything man has done for the last 10 years to clean up the environment.

Interesting read though. Thanks for posting it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Fossil said:

   

Not at all. If you will reread the last sentence of my post you will see what irks me is having these programs based on misinformation being funded by the tax payers. For example, when the original legislation for Ethanol was written up no products that could or would be used for human consumption should be used in the manufacture of Ethanol. The use of agricultural "byproducts" was to be the raw material used in it's production. These to include corn stalks, grain stubble and such. This was in response to the outcry from consumers who were concerned that food prices would go up if things like sugar and corn were used. Well you can see how that turned out. This is the sort of BS  that upsets me. That and the fact that Ethanol itself is not what it was cracked up to be. 

 

 

Absolutely correct. Our knowledge nuclear power production is far beyond what it was when most of those plants were built and the facilities could be built much safer now. It's the people with "hand wringer" mentalities that have killed this source of power. I haven't followed up on this for awhile but the main concern was what to do the the nuclear waste. Has that ever been addressed yet?  

   

 

Are you also unhappy with all the subsidie's we give oil and coal companies? Its just as much of "your" money going to businesses that already make billion$$$. I think I would rather have "my" tax money at least support things that have a chance to make things better instead of just free  government hand outsto corporate cronies.

 

I do agree with you on nuclear. Its not a total answer and it has a bad rap but tech has changed and it is worth another look.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, trimacar said:

. . .As to power and electricity, the United States got scared of nuclear power plants, and that’s a mistake in the long run. France, for example, gets 75% of its power from nuclear plants, though they do plan to reduce that somewhat in the coming years with alternate power sources. . . .

 

7 hours ago, Fossil said:

  . . . Absolutely correct. Our knowledge nuclear power production is far beyond what it was when most of those plants were built and the facilities could be built much safer now. It's the people with "hand wringer" mentalities that have killed this source of power. I haven't followed up on this for awhile but the main concern was what to do the the nuclear waste. Has that ever been addressed yet?  

 

1 hour ago, billorn said:

I do agree with you on nuclear. Its not a total answer and it has a bad rap but tech has changed and it is worth another look.

 

Despite Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi I have never been too worried about nuclear power plants operating safely. Though I suppose with lessons learned from those disasters, newly designed and built nuclear power plants could operate with less chance of major accidents than current ones.

 

But nobody I’ve heard or read about has a plausible plan to deal with the waste. Waste that will be dangerous for longer in the future than the entire history of civilization. Yet we are creating stuff that will take thousands of years to become safe. Such hubris to think we can control the future for that period of time. I am personally against creating any more of that waste until there is a way to properly deal with it. If you know how to get rid of it (both technically and politically), there is a bunch of waste from a shuttered nuclear power plant few miles from my house you can take.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, billorn said:

Are you also unhappy with all the subsidie's we give oil and coal companies?

I absolutely am. We've proven that this country is capable of producing more energy than we can use.

   Coal is a sad story and I really feel for the folks that depend on coal for a living. It has been a dying source of cheap energy for a long time. You'd think as far as we've advanced technically in the last hundred years that we could figure out some way to burn it cleanly.

Petroleum

   I'd gladly listen to someone's reasoning on why tax payers need to support any business that is operating well into the black. It would seem that the money would be much better spent on health care facilities for the elderly or better pay for good teachers, police, firefighters, first responders and such. Much of our highway systems could use a shot in the arm also. 

What are the subsidies being used for? Anyone know?

 

 

Edited by Fossil (see edit history)
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...