Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home
Anthropogenic Global Warming- Your thoughts please

This topic can be found at:

December 23, 2009, 11:46 PM
Anthropogenic Global Warming- Your thoughts please
3) If so-called "greenhouse gas" emissions are bad, why is that? Are there both accute and chronic effects of the accumulation of these gasses in the atmosphere?

I don't know. Why doesn't your side focus on ending the poisons in our air first, and when there is nothing else to worry about, focus on Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Carbon Dioxide.

1992 F350 w/Cummins
2004 F250 w/Edge Platinum
both on B100
December 23, 2009, 11:52 PM
4) There are many pictures available on the internet of retreating glaciers. Recent discoveries of corpses buried thousands of years ago suggest that glaciers are melting. Ice cores also suggest this, showing decreased salinity in ocean water due to increased melting of freshwater ice. If this is not evidence of global warming, what is it? If it is evidence of global warming, then does it make sense to look for the cause, to avoid the consequences that rising oceans, for instance, can have on the planet's inhabitants, including people in low-lying areas?

Before your time there was glaciers over Ohio and Michigan that have also retreated. The people in the low lying areas did not used to be there when the water was high.

1992 F350 w/Cummins
2004 F250 w/Edge Platinum
both on B100
December 23, 2009, 11:59 PM
5) Do you care about declining population of polar bears, movement of plankton to the north and fewer whale births? Do you think these things could be pointing to the consequences of global warming?

How many people depend on the Polar bear for food or shelter? Some say that by 2050 there will be 9 billion people on this rock. Elevated carbon dioxide percentages in the air may spur vigorus plant growth. Are you saying growing rice in Canada is a bad thing.

1992 F350 w/Cummins
2004 F250 w/Edge Platinum
both on B100
December 24, 2009, 12:05 AM
6) If you look at the horizon on a warm summer day, you'll notice a haze. The haze is pollution, and the fact that you can see it lends credence to the idea that it is staying in the atmosphere and trapping heat, right?


I don't know how old you are but didn't you just go through the first snow storm in that local in your lifetime.

1992 F350 w/Cummins
2004 F250 w/Edge Platinum
both on B100
December 24, 2009, 01:49 AM

You have to really ask yourself, which is worse, Man made global warming or man made global cooling? If the guys you put so much faith in are wrong, Sheets of Ice will cover the globe killing everything in it's path. If they are right, a few low lying islands will go away and arable land will greatly increase.

I personally think we should wait a few more years before acting until we all know for sure what's happening with our climate.

December 24, 2009, 02:45 AM
john galt
Originally posted by bradyracing: Why doesn't your side focus on ending the poisons in our air first, and when there is nothing else to worry about, focus on Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Carbon Dioxide.
Good Question. Basically they blew it by putting all their eggs in a basket woven from lies; when the lies unraveled, the bottom fell out.

Climate change campaigners should not have fixated on carbon dioxide

If climate negotiations 20 years ago concentrated on low-hanging fruits, the fight against global warming would have been more successful, argues Geoffrey Lean.

By Geoffrey Lean
Published: 7:45PM BST 18 Sep 2009

Here's a heretical thought, one that might even further inflame the great global-warming slanging match. Has the world set out to tackle climate change in the wrong way? It's not, I admit, the most tactful moment to put the question. On Tuesday the heads of the world's governments meet in New York for the first universal climate summit. This is just the most important of a series of high-level get-togethers addressing the issue, which started on Thursday with a meeting of ministers from the most polluting countries, and continues to the G20 summit in Pittsburgh at the end of the week. But it has to be asked. For more than 20 years the world has been trying to negotiate agreements to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels and felling forests. But they have gone on growing: indeed, their rate of growth has been accelerating.

Concentrating on carbon dioxide was understandable. It is, after all, the biggest single cause of climate change. Scientists have known for more than 180 years that it warms up the atmosphere, and – for more than 110 – roughly what the effects of increasing its concentration would be.
But CO2 is only responsible for about half of the problem. The rest is caused by other pollutants. No worldwide attempt has been made to control some of them, even though doing so would be much less contentious and would reduce global warming far faster.

Take black carbon, which gives soot its colour. It is now accepted to be the second biggest contributor to climate change, responsible for between 10 and 25 per cent of it. Formed through incomplete combustion of wood, vegetation and fossil fuels, it lands a unique double whammy.

While in the air, it absorbs and releases solar radiation, helping to heat up the atmosphere. When it falls out on ice and snow, on mountains or at the poles, it darkens them, causing them to reflect less sunlight and melt more rapidly. And as they disappear they expose more dark land or water, which absorbs even more heat and so further warms the world.

A study by the United Nations Environment Programme concludes that the pollutant has played a major part in shrinking Himalayan glaciers, and helped disrupt the South Asian monsoon.

Then there's tropospheric ozone – the gas when it is relatively near the ground rather than in the protective layer in the stratosphere miles above our heads. Largely formed as a result of emissions from car exhausts, it is thought to contribute between six and 15 per cent of the problem.

There's compelling reason to tackle both, quite apart from climate change. Black carbon is one of the world's greatest killers, largely responsible – in smoke from inefficient woodburning stoves – for at least 1.6 million deaths annually, mainly of children, in the Third World. And, together with ozone, it helps cause 800,000 more each year worldwide from urban air pollution.

Introducing better stoves, or solar cookers, dramatically cuts emissions of black carbon, as does cleaning up emissions from diesel vehicles. And boosting vehicle fuel efficiency – and reducing pollution from other sources, ranging from oil refineries to dry cleaners – will cause less ozone to form.

Taking such steps could have an immediate effect on climate change, as both pollutants disappear almost immediately from the atmosphere – as opposed to carbon dioxide, which lasts for centuries. And they should be comparatively uncontentious. Even Senator James Inhofe, the most outspoken global warming sceptic in the American Congress, has supported a Bill on black carbon, beating Al Gore to it by a few days.

Similarly, George W. Bush helped lead a successful bid to speed up the phasing out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons – up to 1,700 times more potent than carbon dioxide in heating up the planet – under the Montreal Protocol for protecting the ozone layer. Just this week, the American, Canadian and Mexican governments have called for this treaty to be extended to tackle yet another group of greenhouse gases.

This provokes my initial question. If the climate negotiations had set out 20 years ago first to pick these low-hanging fruits, surely we would have got very much further in bringing global warming under control, while building trust to tackle carbon dioxide.

Such a strategy is no longer an option. So much time has been lost and climate change has now progressed so far that big cuts in carbon dioxide are already overdue. But attacking black carbon and the other pollutants would have an immediate impact, and could buy us some desperately needed time.

As Durwood Zaelke, the president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, puts it: "It's essential to cut carbon dioxide, but we can't win if we only target half the problem."

December 24, 2009, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by kumar:
Originally posted by DCS:
I believe the earth may be going through a warming cycle but mans influence on that is impossible to determine because we have not had the technology to monitor things long enough.

Then I ask you the same question I asked "John Galt" (see above). It would seem to me that if you agree that we are dumping massive amounts of material into the atmosphere that hold heat in, then we are aiding global warming, and that is something we should address in an effort to preserve the delicate balance of resources we depend upon to survive, both now and in the future. Of course, if you don't agree about that, then it follows that there is no responsibility to do anything. But be careful, you can't agree, and then say you don't have a responsibility. You can't have it both ways.

Your comments sound like you are trying to justify your agenda with global warming rather elicit a balanced discussion that makes way for the possibility it may not be anything it's cracked up to be.

I do believe humans pump lots of Co2 and heat into the atmosphere, how could anyone not? The question is though, is it enough to form a critical mass that makes a difference?
Exactly as I said, you can urinate on a bush fire but that doesn't mean it will slow it down or have any effect on it. You can also get 1000 of your friends to do the same thing and it still won't matter. If you get a million people, then it -might- make a difference.

My question is, while we are undoubtedly pumping out Co2 and heat, is it enough to make any difference at all to the Cycle of the earth and influence it in any way that matters? If the earth is just doing its thing and mankind will cause the temp to go 1o higher than it would of over the next 500 years, then its pretty pointless worrying about it. To point at numbers over the last 50 or 100 years is ridiculous. That time frame is so insignificant to the history of the earth it just makes a laughing stock out of any study that cites it. Show me an accurate co2 break down of the last 10K years in 50 yr increments and then we may just get some idea of a pattern.

Even if you do think man is having an influence, humanity being what it is isn't going to make one bit of difference to what they are doing now. Much talk will be bandied around, the average Joe in the street will be greenwashed into paying more out of their pocket and the greatest majority of money will go anywhere but to what it is intended for.

Civilized countries will fleece their populations for green tax and manufacturing will move to third world s hit holes whom won't sign any reduction agreements where they are already causing far more environmental damage than the countries taxing their populous. These countries are more focused with feeding their billions have emissions standards no where near as controlled as the places that will tax their manufacturing industry out of Business and while the US and Europe, Oz and others will happily wave their numbers of reduced emissions at each other as the pollies slap each other on their back for a con well done, the total amount of garbage pumped out for the planet will go up.

I have no doubt whatsoever than in 10 years time all this global BS will be looked back on as the greatest con and waste of time and money ever perpetrated on the worlds population. Of course then the next con will be well under way. Roll Eyes
December 24, 2009, 04:24 AM
john galt
Deal with the real problems first.

Exposure to high levels of pollutants from car exhaust and industrial air pollution over the long term may be linked to a doubling of risk of hospitalization for pneumonia among seniors

December 24, 2009, 05:23 AM
As far as pollution...
Is it getting better or worse?

Everything I've seen is huge efforts to clean up the air.

The mills that used to stink... no longer stink. You no longer need to carry a clothes pin to drive past Albany.

LA, St. Louis, and some of the other "bad spots" are much cleaner than I believe they were in the past.
December 24, 2009, 06:01 AM
john galt
As far as pollution...
Is it getting better or worse?

yes, definitely

how much fly manure in the pepper is acceptable? How much rodent feces in the granola is OK?
How much drugs, hormone mimicking chemicals, agricultural and industrial effluent is permissible in the drinking water? Cancer is caused by pollution, that's why the 'cure' is so illusive.

December 24, 2009, 01:08 PM
When I was in junior high school a lot of high powered scientists all over the world were in solid agreement we were headed for another ice age, the big reason that didn't get the traction global climate warming change has is information technology, the effortless dissemination of information.
December 24, 2009, 03:38 PM
man-made global warming/climate change/whatever they call it next has nothing to do with saving the planet, the elites like Al Gore couldnt give a sh1t about that. It's about creating artificial markets for trading 'carbon credits' aka another means of transferring wealth. And lining their pockets.

We're actually coming out of a mini ice age, I'm sure we'd prefer to have glaciers over North America again. Oh wait we want to control the earths temperature. Whatever, its all bull****.

We need to be good stewards of the earth, controlling pollution is far more effective way to do this. Stricter controls on industry, don't dump your oil changes on the ground and don't boil methanol from your glycerin in an open pot.

December 24, 2009, 07:16 PM
john galt
Originally posted by Nathan:
We are the Master of this earth.

December 25, 2009, 09:12 AM

Good questions and the answers are out there for those who truly want to find them. Unfortunetly there is a mass of disinformation out there to confuse the issues and data. Compareing all of Earths climate history with recent developments doesn't reveal the problem we are faceing. There's too many variables in our past to do that. Continental drift,atmosphere composition and the suns output have been much different billions of years ago not to mention our history of climate gets muddier the further back you go to unlock the data.

What the scientists in fields like climatology,physics and math are reporting show dire concenquences for society if steps arn't taken to reduce emissions,mittigate changes and now suggestions on minipulating the envirornment to reduce carbon in the atmosphere to advoid the climate changes to come

People like Watts recieve money for their tactics to confuse the public and their "reports" have no scientific credability scince they have no background in the related fields. Do you want to trust a meterologist to provide sound science on our climate? Dispite sounding like it's a related field it's fundementaly different.

High concentations of co2 have been linked to mass extinctions in the past. Do we ignore that evidence to continue with an oil based economy?

21 years off the grid and counting

December 25, 2009, 10:22 AM
Alot of people need to understand that Earth is a living organism.Man is the parasite feeding off the Earth, and his brothers.The Earth will do as Indian Medicine Men have said for years." The Earth will grow tired of Man" and shake its back like a Dog removing fleas, then a New Red people will take the land and treat it right".

126 diesels yahoo groups
83 SD straight exhaust 94 Cobra
Cold air,real cold.Cobra electric radiator fan,Monark nozzles,10 psi electric fuel pump.85 amp alternator 12" subs.23 psi boost, 30 micron filter,an 5 micron filter added
2 tank,wvo,boost guage ,line heaters,coolant heater Fattywagons customer. 99 S320 with 75 more hp.
December 25, 2009, 11:40 AM
The Earth is a not an organism.
December 25, 2009, 11:49 AM
How come 'the new red people' don't get shaken off like the rest of the fleas ?

December 25, 2009, 03:19 PM
Andrew M
It is hard for me to believe that this is even a debate.

Consider the facts: One fact is that CO2 and methane raise the temp. of earth. A second fact is that humans cause the release of these gases. So, humans cause the temp. to go up. Simple logic.

Now, the interesting questions: How much gas causes how much change and how long that effect take to show up?

Also interesting:
How much, if at all, is the temp. going up?

Would the temp. be going up without our help?

But, given the facts and simple logiic, I think it is on the skeptics to prove that the effects of human activity are negligible, if they want to make that claim. Not on the scientists who are measuring increases in temp. to prove that it is only or mainly caused by humans.

03 Dodge 2500 B100 homebrew
79 Rabbit B100 homebrew
December 25, 2009, 03:37 PM
john galt
I think it is on the skeptics to prove that the effects of human activity are negligible, if they want to make that claim. Not on the scientists who are measuring increases in temp. to prove that it is only or mainly caused by humans.

That sounds remarkably like the attitude we've seen far too often: "I don't have to prove my case but those who disagree with me have to prove theirs" That's not science that's arrogance.

ALL of the data has to be presented transparently, and the methods used to 'analyze' the data have to be clearly divulged. No more "DO what we say because we're smarter and we know what's best for you"

December 25, 2009, 03:48 PM
By simple logic I can prove that the wind is caused by the leaves wiggling on the trees. The faster the leaves wiggle, the faster the wind blows. What about winter when the trees have no leaves you ask? This is global wind we are talking about. Trees some where on the globe always have leaves that cause wind.

If you need more proof, look to the moon. No trees, no wind. Simple logic, don't you think?