Back in 1975 Newsday Among Others Said (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Gatie]

Look closely Andrew, you didn't answer my question. You just automatically assumed I don't want to reduce carbon emissions. You also automatically assumed reducing carbon emissions has to be a detiment to a flourishing economy.

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

Andrew, for only $8AUD you can start the ball rolling by purchasing carbon offset credits for Fluffy Pumpkin's flatulence:

http://shop.easybeinggreen.com.au/pr...ID=134&cID=106

Actually this was a self-inflicted wound from the enactment of the Statute of Westminister in 1931.

 

[Buzz Foster]

There are solutions that are available, should people have the incentive to follow them. While ethanol isn't a panacea for IC enginces, a plug-in hybrid that uses an ethanol fuel cell as a backup would yeald 60% energy conversion of the ethanol when it was needed. At present, we have enough electrical power to charge 84% of plug-in hybrids if we switched all personal autos to plug-in hybrids.

Add a few nuclear plants, and get Detroit rolling on plug-in hybrids, and we are in business. Both emissions and noise drop considerably. Even using a small gasoline engine as a PIH backup, your mileage will average around 100. That's agenerally going to be a five-fold efficiency increase.

 

[andrew markworthy]

I think we could continue to have an interesting and constructive debate over these issues but I fear that we'd inevitably (and no matter how reasonably) veer into political discussion, which is forbidden for good reasons. I'll drop out of the discussion at this point rather than risk the thread being closed.

 

[JeremyErwin]

I think you guys are on the same page. Me? I think there are numerous advantages to a global reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

Global income redistribution and infringement of national sovereignty are but two means to the end-- and poor ones at that.

 

[JeremyErwin]

[url=https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/9/9f/htf_imgcache_6077.png] [/url]

[url=https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/b/b8/htf_imgcache_6078.jpeg] [/url]

 

[Bryan X]

I'm not saying global warming isn't happening, but those two graphs really don't tell us much if anything. It would be much more useful if the base years were the same in both graphs. In the top one, the base years are 1937-1946 and in the bottom graph the base years are 1940-1980.

One could probably make the same graph showing temperatures below the norm if you were able to cherry pick the base years like that.

 

[JeremyErwin]

Fine:
Here's a map generator.

First map:

1965-1975
Second Map:
1995-2004

My point wasn't to show that it's much oranger now, but that the global cooling effect wasn't terribly uniform over the globe. The global warming trend, on the other hand...

1965-1975 compared to 1940-1980

and
1995-2004 as compared to 1937-1946

I'm not a statistician, but there's probably one out there ready to quibble with my choice of baselines.

 

[Bill Cowmeadow]

In 1976 the average fuel economy of us cars was between 12 and 19 miles per gallon.
The standard just released (last Fri) shows the average fuel economy of cars in the US is currently, between 14 and 24 MPG

Not much of an improvement!

But I think with the advent of Hydrogen Fuel Cells, that is all about to change.

Up to now, all attempts to improve fuel consumption in the US have been smoke, mirrors and outright deception.

 

[Bryan X]

I was just left guessing at your point since you didn't post any text with your graphs.

Anyway, like I said, I believe global warming is real, I just didn't think the maps were all that helpful in showing that.

 

[Todd Hochard]

And, I've read that if 100% of vehicles in America were converted to something like this, it would drop global CO2 emissions 4%.

 

[BrianW]

Hydrogen fuel cells in vehicles is a dead end technology. It's much easier to move and store electrons than it is to move and store hydrogen, and hydrogen is really nothing more than an energy storage/transfer medium in any case. (Meaning, it's not an energy source. But, well, we've discussed that before.)

So why not just cut to the end game and make our cars all-electric? Battery technology is finally able to do the job with the ranges people demand, and battery technology is improving and getting cheaper at a faster rate than fuel cell technology.

 

[L. Anton Dencklau]

Source please

 

[Chu Gai]

I posted the link to an actual article to contrast the prevailing thoughts back then with the prevailing thoughts currently. Certainly there's been more research since then and technologies that weren't available then are available now. Regretfully, there's no way to apply certain techniques today such as solar intensity measurements, comprehensive global temperature measurements, cosmic ray intensities, volcanoes spewing gases and particulates into the atmosphere to times long since passed. Further, as science asks more questions, studies more aspects, it's reasonable to expect that existing models will further evolve. Certainly as has been mentioned elsewhere, the UN commissioned study has downgraded man's impact by about 25% based on research over the past couple of years. Buzz, who chimed in early mentioned cosmic rays and the research that's been going on that shows a correlation with that and cloud cover.

What I personally find perplexing is why is it that humanity seems to think that global climate is supposed to remain relatively constant with respect to geographical locations? Is that what control of emissions is supposed to effect? What in the billions of years that the earth has been existence is there to suggest such a thought? In a sense, we've been lucky that conditions around the globe have been more or less predictable from year to year. But that's nothing more than tossing coins and finding out that you've got a run of 7 heads.

ChristopherDAC is bothered by the dust storms afflicting parts of Texas but why not at least equally pleased that there were no hurricanes that hit the US this year? Why isn't there some solace in the month or so of relatively warm weather the northeast experienced earlier this year?

Climate science is hardly a mature science. To make long term policy decisions based upon an understanding that's still evolving, as it has in the past 30 years since that Newsweek article I presented seems more than a bit short sighted. If the rest of the world feels differently so what? How will Europe feel when Russia again decides to play gotcha by turning off the natural gas supply? The rest of the world stands up as one against Gitmo but is conspicuously silent of the prisons and prisoner treatment just a few miles on the other side.

 

[Todd Hochard]

It was in The Economist, past couple of issues. I forget which one, sorry. The data was footnoted in the article, though. I wish I could remember where it came from.

I'm of the opinion that Man is contributing to global warming. I'm not certain that we're majority contributors, but significant, nonetheless. The measures needed to have a substantial effect in the short term are so draconian as to be laughable, though.
It doesn't mean that we ought do nothing, just because someone else told us that we should. "National Sovereignty" sounds like a lame excuse to line up on the other side of an idea, because it wasn't invented here. As Buzz noted, there are lots of good reasons to make changes being recommended under the ominous cloud of "global warming" before we even get to global warming. Why we wouldn't get onboard and get busy, regardless of who's telling us to or not, seems silly- adolescent, in fact.

 

[Buzz Foster]

"And, I've read that if 100% of vehicles in America were converted to something like this, it would drop global CO2 emissions 4%."

Please recheck that source...most discussions I am reading are talking about using ethanol in internal combustion engines. A plug-in electric hybrid with an ethanol fuel cell secondary power system, NOT an ethanol internal combustion engine is what I am describing.

Plug-in electric hybrid gasoline-engine cars are estimated (based on average daily commutes) to get around 100mpg. (Mileage does drop significantly on long trips.) Internal combustion engines are about 18% efficient. Experimental ethanol fuel cells are getting about 60% energy conversion. That should push efficiency to 200 to 250 miles per gallon of ethanol, if the technology can be safely applied at that conversion rate, based on average daily commutes.

Ethanol cannot, by current methods, be produced in sufficient quantities to power IC engined SUVs for everyone. A quantum change in both the fuel and the technology that uses it is needed. 200 to 250mpg would mean an ethanol appetite of 10% of what we currently consume in gasoline. A full 90% reduction would likely prove untenable, but certainly huge gains in efficiency could be realized if we put our resources behind them.

 

[L. Anton Dencklau]

Thank you

 

[Jeff Gatie]

It isn't who is telling us to do it, it's who is telling us how to do it. Read Kyoto, really read it, and you will see why the US Senate voted 95-0 to never enter any treaty even resembling Kyoto and Gore's own administration wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

The problem I've heard with the hybrid electric vehicles is the risks involved with keeping that much energy as electricity on board. Mechanics have to be really careful lest they fry themselves. The fire departments in my areas have to deal with accident scenes the same way they do electrical fires, and many of the rescue crews are really hesitant to to piercing the vehicle.

 

[Buzz Foster]

Adam, I don't doubt the concerns. But I do suspect that as plug-in (and standard) hybrids become more common, rescue will learn to deal with them, too. The fact is, even if the world's big supplies of oil were under stable, friendly countries, it is finite. We will run out. Electricity is the most efficient substitute. Should we ever get fusion off the ground, our challenge will be to convert the abundance of electricity it provides into the forms of energy we need.