Global Warming?

[therealUT]

So you don't think that in the long run, not depending on foreign oil will be bad for our economy?

I think depending on foreign oil is bad. That is why I think we should resume drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. Also, I have faith that the scientific community will, in the next 25 years, make hydrogen fuel cells efficient enough to compete with gasoline engines.

 

[jdsa]

The problems of global warming and u.s. dependency on foreign oil are two different problems.

As far as lowering the production of greenhouse gases producd by cars and trucks, we're actually quite limited in our options. Biofuels produce CO2 just like regular gas does, and fuel cells and/or electric cars rely on power generated (mostly) from coal burning power plants. No magic cure there either. Solar and wind power may be our best alternatives here, though I think some of the coal companies have been making some noise recently about next-generation emission free plants.

On the subject of oil, based on what I've read, the protected lands the very existence of which seems to irk some conservatives don't have enough oil to offset what we import from foreign sources. Not to say that we should never drill ANWR, but it's no solution to the problem of foreign oil dependency. Moreover, many of the sites which have been developed world-wide can't produce the volume of oil they could when they were new (peak oil), so alternatives from tar sands to coal liquefaction to biofuels will have to be developed to meet the world appetite for oil (imo). It's just a matter of recognizing the emerging problem sooner ($70/bbl) rather than later ($100/bbl+).

 

[volinbham]

The problems of global warming and u.s. dependency on foreign oil are two different problems.

As far as lowering the production of greenhouse gases producd by cars and trucks, we're actually quite limited in our options. Biofuels produce CO2 just like regular gas does, and fuel cells and/or electric cars rely on power generated (mostly) from coal burning power plants. No magic cure there either. Solar and wind power may be our best alternatives here, though I think some of the coal companies have been making some noise recently about next-generation emission free plants.

Similar problem with hydrogen fuel cells. The processes from obtaining hydrogen (e.g. electrolysis, etc.) require energy - most of what I've seen show any method to be energy neutral at best (most require more energy). May eventually solve much of the foreign oil issue but as you suggest, foreign oil and greenhouse emissions are different issues.

 

[WA_Vol]

The problems of global warming and u.s. dependency on foreign oil are two different problems.

As far as lowering the production of greenhouse gases producd by cars and trucks, we're actually quite limited in our options. Biofuels produce CO2 just like regular gas does, and fuel cells and/or electric cars rely on power generated (mostly) from coal burning power plants. No magic cure there either.

totally disagree. Its much easier controlling the emissions of a 100 power plants in this country then the emissions of millions and millions of vehiclees. Power plants are getting much cleaner, they have new bacteria that can be used to scrubb the emission gases and makes the emissions much cleaner emissions while making the powerplant more productive.

 

[WA_Vol]

Similar problem with hydrogen fuel cells. The processes from obtaining hydrogen (e.g. electrolysis, etc.) require energy - most of what I've seen show any method to be energy neutral at best (most require more energy). May eventually solve much of the foreign oil issue but as you suggest, foreign oil and greenhouse emissions are different issues.

The issue of requiring more energy, is irrevelevant if the source energy is renewable, i.e. biodiesel. If the source for biodiesel is algae it may take more to create the biodiesel but as long as the energy source is renewable you wont run out. Most of these biodiesel plants provide their own energy to run the plant in addition to creating the biodiesel.

 

[volinbham]

The issue of requiring more energy, is irrevelevant if the source energy is renewable, i.e. biodiesel. If the source for biodiesel is algae it may take more to create the biodiesel but as long as the energy source is renewable you wont run out. Most of these biodiesel plants provide their own energy to run the plant in addition to creating the biodiesel.

It is an issue if the energy source produces emissions in similar quantities. Further, if it takes more biodiesel to create the hydrogen for the fuel cells, why not cut out the hydrogen part?

In short, much of the talk of hydrogen being a clean energy source is complicated by the process of obtaining the hydrogen. Sure, the emissions from the car are primarily water but the emissions from the power plant may make up for it!

 

[rwemyss]

This one seems to have lost the interest of most of you... maybe because of OWB's propaganda. I'd like to take a very scientific approach here, and see what sort of reactions I get.

As a senior engineering student, we have had many classes dealing with Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer. The issue of the Earth sitting in the middle of a vaccum makes for a very simple heat transfer problem. Conservation of Energy states E(in)-E(out)=E(storage), and the only mode of transfer to/from the Earth is radiation! Radiation heat transfer is run by the Stefan-Boltzman law... this law is difficult to type out into the message board, but in the end, the understood issue is dealt with by two different properties of the earth... the absorbtivity of the earth (commonly denoted by alpha) and the emissivity of the earth (commonly denoted by epsilon). As long as the planet has a higher emissivity than absorbtivity, it will lose energy, the opposite, gain energy. The difficult issue here is in determining these constants for the entire planet at any given time.

Clouds lower the absorbtivity of the planet (actually increasing the reflectivity)... as temperatures rise, more water vapor is created, increasing cloud cover, in effect lowering the amount of energy the earth is taking in, thus helping to maintain an energy balance that has been working for a VERY long time.


This is my theoretical view on this issue, obviously if it were proven there wouldn't be any debates here, as the radiation constants for something as large as the earth are difficult to determine with any sort of accuracy, its just something I've been thinking about for a while. /end rant

For more interesting views on radiation heat transfer to/from the earth check out the Wikipedia article on albedo (the common term for absorbtivity of the earth).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

 

[allvol123]

first of all, the earth's climate is obviously changing, how ignorant would it be to think the earth maintains a static state.

The real question, if you want one in this area, is, is it warming at a pace that would cause us harm. Even if it were, I doubt there is anything we can do to stop it since we probably aren't causing it.

Also, I believe a former NASA scientist who is one of the lead whacks in this area, claimed 20 years ago that we were entering global cooling. He said our pollution was defelecting the suns rays and causing a cooling effect. Now he has changed his theory to global warming. He has to keep busy in order to maintain his fundin$. I am sure he has no agenda

 

[OWB]

This one seems to have lost the interest of most of you... maybe because of OWB's propaganda.

It lost interest because I'm about the one who believes in Global Warming and just like every other thread, it's me against the ROVN....

It's pointless.

 

[utvolpj]

It lost interest because I'm about the one who believes in Global Warming and just like every other thread, it's me against the ROVN....

It's pointless.

You and Al Gore :biggrin2: :wink2:

 

[OWB]

You and Al Gore :biggrin2: :wink2:

I wish I knew Al Gore, he seems like an interesting fellow.

 

[volinbham]

I wish I knew Al Gore, he seems like an interesting fellow.

don't you mean interesting robot?

 

[OWB]

don't you mean interesting robot?

Geez, can't you all leave the man alone? I mean, you already stole a Presidency from the man. Isn't that enough?

 

[WA_Vol]

This one seems to have lost the interest of most of you... maybe because of OWB's propaganda. I'd like to take a very scientific approach here, and see what sort of reactions I get.

As a senior engineering student, we have had many classes dealing with Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer. The issue of the Earth sitting in the middle of a vaccum makes for a very simple heat transfer problem. Conservation of Energy states E(in)-E(out)=E(storage), and the only mode of transfer to/from the Earth is radiation! Radiation heat transfer is run by the Stefan-Boltzman law... this law is difficult to type out into the message board, but in the end, the understood issue is dealt with by two different properties of the earth... the absorbtivity of the earth (commonly denoted by alpha) and the emissivity of the earth (commonly denoted by epsilon). As long as the planet has a higher emissivity than absorbtivity, it will lose energy, the opposite, gain energy. The difficult issue here is in determining these constants for the entire planet at any given time.

Clouds lower the absorbtivity of the planet (actually increasing the reflectivity)... as temperatures rise, more water vapor is created, increasing cloud cover, in effect lowering the amount of energy the earth is taking in, thus helping to maintain an energy balance that has been working for a VERY long time.
This is my theoretical view on this issue, obviously if it were proven there wouldn't be any debates here, as the radiation constants for something as large as the earth are difficult to determine with any sort of accuracy, its just something I've been thinking about for a while. /end rant

For more interesting views on radiation heat transfer to/from the earth check out the Wikipedia article on albedo (the common term for absorbtivity of the earth).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

On a sidebar, you could use a thermodynamic analysis to make a case for the existence of God. Entropy being created by every process by which energy is converted from one form to another and entropy always increasing and useable energy always decreasing.

So the question becomes, how did the earth begin with a zero or low entropy when every known process on the earth increases entropy and no process decreases entropy. This tends to make the case for higher being who created the laws that the universe obeys since the earth could not have been created by any natural process and have zero to no entropy.

The only counter arguement I have ever heard is that the earth is not an isolated system which is weak at best.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I still say it is Earth "Tilt" that is causing global warming.....


The man enjoying one last stroll on the river before it dries up!

By the way OWB..........nice electorate...

 

[smoke_em06]

Global Warming is overrated. The earth goes through cycles. We did have an Ice Age and we have been warming up ever since. You have uneducated scientists that don't even practice in the climatology field, and they are screaming that the big Hurricanes from the 2005 season were because of Global Warming. However, many of the top hurricane experts in the Country have said that there is no link. It is all because of sea salt salinity. I don't understand how that works, but I'll take their word for it. You have these tests that are taken to measure the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. However, most of these are heavily skewed because a majority of the surveys are done near massive volcanoes. And as we all know, volcanoes produce tremendous amounts of CO2 gas into the air. I definitely agree that we need to change the way that we handle pollution. Most of the CO2 and other harmful gases that are being produced today are coming from the Industrial Revolution in China. They have yet to impose any restriction on emission outputs like we have here in the states. Global Warming is a natural process that environmentalists are blowing way out of proportion.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

We had an Ice Age in the 1970's................Mass panic............... :blush2:

 

[OWB]

So you all believe in a super invisible man in the sky, but global warming is just too hard of a concept to grasp?

 

[therealUT]

So you all believe in a super invisible man in the sky, but global warming is just too hard of a concept to grasp?

I believe that the Earth is warming. However, I am not sold that it is heating up due to man made technology. The earth is dynamic. At times, this leads to a pattern of global cooling at other times global warming.

On a side note (and do not wish to turn this thread also into a religious thread): I do not believe that God is in any way in human form. I believe that God is a scientific, logical, and reasonable entity.

 

[OWB]

I believe that the Earth is warming. However, I am not sold that it is heating up due to man made technology. The earth is dynamic. At times, this leads to a pattern of global cooling at other times global warming.

I think that I've asked you this before, so if I have forgive me.

Do you not think that the progress of man (especially in the last 50-60 years) has had no impact on the Earth and it's climate whatsoever?

 

[allvol123]

So you all believe in a super invisible man in the sky, but global warming is just too hard of a concept to grasp?

no, just you and Al Gore's version is what I do not accept. The fact that the temperatures vary from season to season and can even be on a trend is very acceptable. The idea that we are causing it or that we are in some great harm I do not accept. You stated earlier that it was a battle of earth versus man I think, earth will always win that battle.

 

[therealUT]

I think that I've asked you this before, so if I have forgive me.

Do you not think that the progress of man (especially in the last 50-60 years) has had no impact on the Earth and it's climate whatsoever?

I would be a fool to say it has had no impact. However, I would be very pretentious to say that we are causing as big of a change as many claim. I believe the impact has been minimal, in the large scope of things. I also believe that our reliance on fossil fuels is less an issue than people make it out to be. I have a feeling we are less than a generation away from a breakthrough (we have digitized the world in the past 20 years, yet have relied on internal combustion for over 100) that will deem most fossil fuels obsolete. That is why I refuse to purchase a Hybrid automobile right now, because I honestly believe that investing in a Hybrid is akin to investing in a LaserDisc machine, circa 1994 (?).

 

[smoke_em06]

I believe that the Earth is warming. However, I am not sold that it is heating up due to man made technology. The earth is dynamic. At times, this leads to a pattern of global cooling at other times global warming.

On a side note (and do not wish to turn this thread also into a religious thread): I do not believe that God is in any way in human form. I believe that God is a scientific, logical, and reasonable entity.

But you do agree that he created us in his own image.

 

[OWB]

Do you all think that the Earth is able to fix itself? Do you think that Hurricanes, tornados, tsunamis, flood, fire, harsh weather etc etc are actually defense mechanisms of the Earth?

 

[therealUT]

But you do agree that he created us in his own image.

I believe he made us logical and rational. I do not believe that God is a man with a beard, two legs, two arms, a smile, and two eyes.