ghstwolf - I am continually surprised by the amount of people who are in denial about climate change. It's real, it's happening and there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for it.

Alot of research is simply not publicised in the media because it doesn't conveniently fit into sound bites between adverts.

This is quite a good article: IS THE EARTH REALLY FINISHED? Countering Despair with the Momentum of Hope

Why are you attributing that to me? In this thread (I didn't check other threads), I have given no opinion on whether (human caused) climate change is happening. I have given a critque on Kyoto's failures, and I have questioned "facts" that are presented with no context (ie the wildfire example).

I don't waste my time with "media" news, in part for the reason mentioned (the other being the SSDD syndrome on the news). However, I also gave up on global warming from an objective standpoint several years back. That has a lot to do with the "research" supporting it, sorry I was reading the papers, and far more research was done on its effects (economic, ecology, among others) than to ever prove or document the mechanisms. Maybe that has improved resently, but the piling on of dubious effects, makes me doubt it. But that is the "business side" of it, again it doesn't prove or disprove whether it is real or not (nor to what degree).

So, do you have an answer to my earlier post? I'm giving you a chance to make the case that wildfires are indeed escalating because of global warming, not because of direct human involvement. In light of the estimates that 60% of "wildfires" are caused by people camping or throwing lit cigarettes out car windows. Also considering the historic over abundance of fuel on the ground (leaves and down wood), the removal of fire breaks (old logging trails), and several local considerations too small or diverse to list. These are the stewardship issues I've been talking about, and it's a far smaller leap of faith to say these are the causes.

---

Still looking for something profound or inspirational to place here.

Well, the rapid pace is up to debate, and the planet kooled quite a bit in the Middle Ages. You can say that it's human activity, but that's just your position.

Actually there a theories about that, that cooling was caused by a super volcano that errupted around 535AD.

But there are plenty of people who would support it at any cost. That is ideology over reality. Many people want to support it because it makes them feel better about themselves. I mean, they haven't done a thing, but they feel better because they care. Pfffft.

It's better too support something positive that do nothing at all. You have to start somewhere or you get nowhere.

It may not have been a bad idea to you. I think expensive political joke legislation is always a bad idea.

The first step to dealing with a problem is admitting that you have one.

Regardless, by 2050 there will be nearly 9 billion people on earth. They want their MTV.

There is no reason that they can't have it. Although I think the majority of the world would like clean water, food and access to healthcare to start with. Perhaps if the West committed to funding research into alternative technologies rather than suppressing them we could improve the living conditions of all the people on the planet.

But according to your logic we're going to be wiped out by a volcano/ meteorite/wandering black hole anyway so why bother?

You would have to quote where I said anything of the sort.

You keep going on about volcanoes as if the fact that they produce CO2 means that there is no point doing anything about our own emissions. Volcanoes don't just emit CO2. The dust and other gases contribute to a net cooling effect. Just like the other pollutants that we produce help to mask the effect of global warming. During the 3 days after 9/11 when all the planes where grounded there was an average increase temperature of 1 degree. See global dimming.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Yeah, the climate has always changed. However not ever at such a rapid pace, and that is due to human activity.

Well, the rapid pace is up to debate, and the planet kooled quite a bit in the Middle Ages. You can say that it's human activity, but that's just your position.

I think that everybody agrees that Kyoto is flawed and does not go far enough. It has been watered down so severely in an attempt to make it palatable to the American government that it has been effectively emasculated.

But there are plenty of people who would support it at any cost. That is ideology over reality. Many people want to support it because it makes them feel better about themselves. I mean, they haven't done a thing, but they feel better because they care. Pfffft.

That does not mean that it is was bad idea. It runs out in 2012 and I hardly beleive that the entire western industrial complex is going to manage to decamp the India and China in just 7 years.

It may not have been a bad idea to you. I think expensive political joke legislation is always a bad idea.

Regardless, by 2050 there will be nearly 9 billion people on earth. They want their MTV.

But according to your logic we're going to be wiped out by a volcano/ meteorite/wandering black hole anyway so why bother?

You would have to quote where I said anything of the sort.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I am continually surprised by the amount of people who are in denial about climate change. It's real, it's happening and there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for it.

Sure, but that's been the case since the beginning of time. The climate has continually changed, with or without humans, i.e. cooling into, and warming out of, ice ages long before we appeared.

The point I was making was that Kyoto was an ineffective political joke regardless of the fact that Tomas was so thrilled that Burkina Faso and Fiji signed right up.

Heh heh.

Yeah, the climate has always changed. However not ever at such a rapid pace, and that is due to human activity. Ice ages aren't much fun so I'd rather not have to live through one and Venus isn't such a great place to live (a victim of the runaway green house effect.)

I think that everybody agrees that Kyoto is flawed and does not go far enough. It has been watered down so severely in an attempt to make it palatable to the American government that it has been effectively emasculated. That does not mean that it is was bad idea. It runs out in 2012 and I hardly beleive that the entire western industrial complex is going to manage to decamp the India and China in just 7 years.

But according to your logic we're going to be wiped out by a volcano/ meteorite/wandering black hole anyway so why bother?

---

Reality Internet Personality

I am continually surprised by the amount of people who are in denial about climate change. It's real, it's happening and there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for it.

Sure, but that's been the case since the beginning of time. The climate has continually changed, with or without humans, i.e. cooling into, and warming out of, ice ages long before we appeared.

The point I was making was that Kyoto was an ineffective political joke regardless of the fact that Tomas was so thrilled that Burkina Faso and Fiji signed right up.

Heh heh.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Oh, and BTW, Tomas, the wildfires in the western United States didn't sign Kyoto either...

It was a joke, folks... 8^]

Oh sorry, I didn't realise you had a sense of humour. :-)

ghstwolf - I am continually surprised by the amount of people who are in denial about climate change. It's real, it's happening and there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for it.

Alot of research is simply not publicised in the media because it doesn't conveniently fit into sound bites between adverts.

[Edit for bad spelling]

This is quite a good article: IS THE EARTH REALLY FINISHED? Countering Despair with the Momentum of Hope

---

Reality Internet Personality

Australia didn't either, I'm An Aussie and not blooby proud of it on this issue..

I'm proud of them. Not blooby proud, but proud. Heh.

They stood for what makes sense, and not some feel-good Barbra Streisand.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Australia didn't either, I'm An Aussie and not blooby proud of it on this issue..

Stargate

---

Oh, and BTW, Tomas, the wildfires in the western United States didn't sign Kyoto either...

It was a joke, folks... 8^]

Sure, it's all fun and games until someone stick a foot in their mouth ;)

Es99- I cannot argue with the quote (it really is a "duh" kind of statement). However, the very first problem with the "increased in the last 10 years" arguement is that there is no control period given. Even ignoring that, it also lacks other essential facts (for example the areas available). That doesn't mean it isn't true, it just means a bunch of research to make it useful.

More to the point, even if 100% true (compared to long time norms, with all the needed adjustments) it is a pretty big leap to claim global warming is the cause. I don't really care that there is concensus, global warming has become a catch-all for anything bad that might possibly be tied into it.

---

Still looking for something profound or inspirational to place here.

Oh, and BTW, Tomas, the wildfires in the western United States didn't sign Kyoto either...

It was a joke, folks... 8^]

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Oh, and BTW, Tomas, the wildfires in the western United States didn't sign Kyoto either...

They were caused by global warming though.

How do you figure that???

Wildfires have occured since long before "man" existed. The scope has changed due more to poor stewardship, than Global Warming. So what part of it are you attributing to global warming?

Yes there have always been bush fires, but they have increased in frequency and severity over the last 10 years. The poor stewardship might be the initial cause of these fires, but the scale of them can be attributed to global warming. In Europe we've had some pretty severe fires in the last few years, so it's not just happening in Amereica. I've got this information from various sources and it is pretty much accepted as fact.

As the temperature increases there will be more evaporation and less rainfall so we will have drier summers. I quote form the Yosemite website which doesn't like to commit to strongly but says among other things:

"...forest fires are likely to become more frequent and severe if soils become drier."

---

Reality Internet Personality

Oh, and BTW, Tomas, the wildfires in the western United States didn't sign Kyoto either...

They were caused by global warming though.

How do you figure that???

Wildfires have occured since long before "man" existed. The scope has changed due more to poor stewardship, than Global Warming. So what part of it are you attributing to global warming?

---

Still looking for something profound or inspirational to place here.

Oh, and BTW, Tomas, the wildfires in the western United States didn't sign Kyoto either...

They were caused by global warming though.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Oh, and BTW, Tomas, the wildfires in the western United States didn't sign Kyoto either...

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Things in landfills usually get broken down and absorbed into the environment. This however, is exactly what you don't want to happen if you're trying to reduce the overall CO2 in the atmosphere. What else are you going to use that much CO2 for?

Who knows? If the idea doesn't work, it doesn't work. C'est la vie. I'm not GM.

Your points are valid, except in that you ignore the inefficiencies inherent in home generation while highlighting the inefficiencies of the central power. I can only speculate on why home generation would cost more, but I would guess the primary reason is less efficient conversion from the gas to electricity. True, there are negligible losses in transmission of the power, but that alone doesn't mean you have a net gain.

I still don't understand you. The point to home generation would be to avoid the problems listed above AND avoid the emissions of coal fired plants. Between the three gadgets it may be a net gain for the environment, though that doesn't mean that there will be no costs involved. No shocker there.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Then the car won't get built. Honda will decide it ain't worth it. C'est la vie. However, everything fills up landfills. While it may not be a long term solution, waste disposal rarely is. It may be efficient in the short term until a better solution comes along, or until the filter could be reclaimed and the CO2 used for something else.

Things in landfills usually get broken down and absorbed into the environment. This however, is exactly what you don't want to happen if you're trying to reduce the overall CO2 in the atmosphere. What else are you going to use that much CO2 for?

I don't understand you. Is your point that emission free home generation must cost less than central power generation? I'm not sure it will, at least initially. I did say that generators for each home are significantly more efficient, do not lose enormous amounts of energy in transmission, are not subject to massive failure (as in shutting down the grid)and/or attack, and allow people to control their power usage exactly. Adding in mini-turbines and solar power/warming would add to the equation. Selling power back to the utility would help as well.

No, my point is just the oppposite. To summarize,

Cost of home generation: $.26/KWH.
Cost of central power generation: $.15/KWH.

Therefore, the grid is cheaper. Obviously I made some approximations and assumptions in figuring the cost of home generation, but I think I gave an estimate in your favor anyway. If you have better numbers, I'd love to hear them.

Your points are valid, except in that you ignore the inefficiencies inherent in home generation while highlighting the inefficiencies of the central power. I can only speculate on why home generation would cost more, but I would guess the primary reason is less efficient conversion from the gas to electricity. True, there are negligible losses in transmission of the power, but that alone doesn't mean you have a net gain.

Were you responding to comments I made?

Oh, sorry... thought you wrote that one.

Ok, so let's say you make a perfectly efficient filter that traps CO2. How much gas can you afford to fill the landfill with? For simplicity, let's say your filter, when full, ends up just as a box full of CO2. Now if you took all of the CO2 exhaust from cars, and put it in a box, it would fill up a landfill pretty quickly. Now what? Keep piling it on? What about in 100 years? 1000? This is not a long term solution.

Then the car won't get built. Honda will decide it ain't worth it. C'est la vie. However, everything fills up landfills. While it may not be a long term solution, waste disposal rarely is. It may be efficient in the short term until a better solution comes along, or until the filter could be reclaimed and the CO2 used for something else.

You are also misusing the term "orders of magnitude" or "efficiency." If the efficiency of a power plant is .2, one order of magniude (a factor of 10) more efficient would be 2, which would be quite the feat.

You are right, I'm just speaking here, I should not have used the phrase in that context.

Anyway, I think the economical argument says something about the underlying scientific efficiency...Assuming gas is $3 per gallon, that works out to be about $.26 per KWH, and that's being generous, as most generators don't output their max power for the quoted duration.

I don't understand you. Is your point that emission free home generation must cost less than central power generation? I'm not sure it will, at least initially. I did say that generators for each home are significantly more efficient, do not lose enormous amounts of energy in transmission, are not subject to massive failure (as in shutting down the grid)and/or attack, and allow people to control their power usage exactly. Adding in mini-turbines and solar power/warming would add to the equation. Selling power back to the utility would help as well.

PS: didn't want to respond to my original post on this thread?

Were you responding to comments I made?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Ok, so let's say you make a perfectly efficient filter that traps CO2. How much gas can you afford to fill the landfill with? For simplicity, let's say your filter, when full, ends up just as a box full of CO2. Now if you took all of the CO2 exhaust from cars, and put it in a box, it would fill up a landfill pretty quickly. Now what? Keep piling it on? What about in 100 years? 1000? This is not a long term solution.

Why dump it? We could do so many other things with it. Most plants (given otherwise normal conditions) grow faster with the addition CO2 in the atmosphere. In an enclosed greenhouse (the type plants grow in), we could use that to accelerate crop growth. Maybe that would allow us to move to bio-fuels which are at least carbon neutral.

Carbon is very versatile, but to this point there has been no economic reason to use CO2 as a source for it. Set-up correctly, filter recycling would be a paying proposition, and that before processing it to a product that can make even more. This is a case of "build it and they will come".

---

Still looking for something profound or inspirational to place here.

I'm not sure I understand you. If the filtered items and other pollutants are cleaned from the air and stored in a filter, the filter would still go into a land fill, or wherever garbage is kept. Which means those pollutants would not cause atmospheric changes. Which, for global warming, is a net gain.

Ok, so let's say you make a perfectly efficient filter that traps CO2. How much gas can you afford to fill the landfill with? For simplicity, let's say your filter, when full, ends up just as a box full of CO2. Now if you took all of the CO2 exhaust from cars, and put it in a box, it would fill up a landfill pretty quickly. Now what? Keep piling it on? What about in 100 years? 1000? This is not a long term solution.

You need to be more specific here. The SA I mentioned (if I remember correctly) notes that a centralized coal burning plant wastes 70% off the top, before it even gets to distro, et cetera.

Admittedly, over the past 100 years or so that was the only efficient way to do it. However, small natural gas generators have become available and orders of magnitude more efficient, not to mention solar cells, mini wind turbines, et cetera.

70-80% seems reasonable, though I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of that loss is the conversion of the chemical energy stored in hydrocarbons to electricity (which is the same in gas powered generators), not transmission losses in the wires. You are also misusing the term "orders of magnitude" or "efficiency." If the efficiency of a power plant is .2, one order of magniude (a factor of 10) more efficient would be 2, which would be quite the feat.

Anyway, I think the economical argument says something about the underlying scientific efficiency, so I'll give you some numbers to consider. I pay about $.15 per KWH of electricity. Using this generator as an example, it could go 13.4 hours generating 5.5 KW on 6.5 gallons of gas. Assuming gas is $3 per gallon, that works out to be about $.26 per KWH, and that's being generous, as most generators don't output their max power for the quoted duration.

PS: didn't want to respond to my original post on this thread?

---

Here's an Installation Guide.
Try the Wiki for other questions.

You still fail to se the fact that volcanos for the last 50 years have contribute to lover the temperature and not the opposite as you so desperately try to get us to believe

I've reread your posts and the information you presented and it's really lacking. You conveniently omit data that doesn't support your position and ignore facts that go against your position. From what I can see, your interest isn't really in having an effective plan that could improve the environment but is centered on having a bigger governmental bureaucracy.

---

To truly explore, one must keep an open mind...