No, we cant trash the whole environment and make it into a cesspool like we have done to Los Angles, San Francisco, Mexico City, New York, Sydney, Tokyo, and one of a thousand other cities around the world.
[Edited for content]
$100,000 global environmental design challenge
I'm not and never have said we should ignore any issues. I agree we should all as humans live as efficiently as possible and do as much as we can to take care of earth since it is our home.
All I'm saying is if you can't walk the walk don't talk the talk.
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones... ect ect...
All I'm saying is if you can't walk the walk don't talk the talk.
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones... ect ect...
-
Chris Smith
- Posts: 4325
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Bieber Ca.
I don’t live in a Glass City any more.
I don’t make huge carbon foot prints any more, I Reuses everything until its dead, unlike the cities that are causing most of the problems.
Keeping up with the Jones, has been our problem.
New this and new that, just because you have money to burn.
Gas, what the hell, I can afford that new SUV? Screw the world, ......and your children.
Even recycling causes CO emissions. Its less but its still there
How many here have one water bottle to drink out of until It breaks, or do they merely buy a new one each time they are thirsty?
[Water bottles now banned from the City of SF]
There’s a start.
The list is hundreds of miles long, and all because of the convenience of a city.
Don’t complain until you start to do your part, and if you live in the city, hire a teacher because what you need to start learning will take you a long time.
Start with REAL car pooling, its bad enough that we burn all that gas for nothing, but also that same half we import into the country.
YES, half of all the gas burned in this country comes from sitting and crawling in traffic.
AC,...... move to swamp coolers. About 1/20th the energy usage and lots more in some cases.
If you live in LA, save the rest of the state and flush half as much as you do now, you waste way too much water that isn’t even yours, and it is finite like everything else. You cant even slow down your borders, what then, what’s next, rationing?
And like I said, the list is a hundred miles long.
Yes, to be serious is to start, to be serious means you read the main stream, not some moron in DC trying to sell you more gas for more money. Above all else, pull your head out of the sand, ITS here, and ITS real so start learning how to do your part.
The past is over. Lets start to do it right this time.
I don’t make huge carbon foot prints any more, I Reuses everything until its dead, unlike the cities that are causing most of the problems.
Keeping up with the Jones, has been our problem.
New this and new that, just because you have money to burn.
Gas, what the hell, I can afford that new SUV? Screw the world, ......and your children.
Even recycling causes CO emissions. Its less but its still there
How many here have one water bottle to drink out of until It breaks, or do they merely buy a new one each time they are thirsty?
[Water bottles now banned from the City of SF]
There’s a start.
The list is hundreds of miles long, and all because of the convenience of a city.
Don’t complain until you start to do your part, and if you live in the city, hire a teacher because what you need to start learning will take you a long time.
Start with REAL car pooling, its bad enough that we burn all that gas for nothing, but also that same half we import into the country.
YES, half of all the gas burned in this country comes from sitting and crawling in traffic.
AC,...... move to swamp coolers. About 1/20th the energy usage and lots more in some cases.
If you live in LA, save the rest of the state and flush half as much as you do now, you waste way too much water that isn’t even yours, and it is finite like everything else. You cant even slow down your borders, what then, what’s next, rationing?
And like I said, the list is a hundred miles long.
Yes, to be serious is to start, to be serious means you read the main stream, not some moron in DC trying to sell you more gas for more money. Above all else, pull your head out of the sand, ITS here, and ITS real so start learning how to do your part.
The past is over. Lets start to do it right this time.
-
positronicle
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 1:01 am
- Contact:
-
Chris Smith
- Posts: 4325
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Bieber Ca.
I'm not going to bother to check your numbers, I don't have to, you're just proving my point anyway (at least, if I can figure out your preposterous grammar, you should try typing a little more carefully.) 1,800,000,000,000 pounds = 900,000,000 tons. I said "...nature produces 200,000,000,000 tons of CO2 annually, as opposed to mankind's 7,000,000,000 tons annually." So, U.S. residential vehicles produce about 00.45% of what the earth produces. Are you still saying that that causes global warming?In 1994, U.S. residential vehicles traveled 1793 billion miles ...........or 1793 billion pounds of WHAT,..... nature??? [1.8 trillion pounds]
After your continual gall, it sounds like you are the one whose a tad on the ignorant side, especially with the evidence you've supplied. Remember, "At least 94% of the earth's greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor." That makes water vapor the main greenhouse gas. So industry and transportation pump out more than half of the water vapor, more than natural evaporation? That's crazy, you need a better source.Greenhouse gas emissions from industry, transportation(1/3 of total US global warming pollution).......over 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions world wide.
I think that that would apply well to many liberals as well as conservatives. Bias is a powerful thing. Don't pretend that it doesn't affect you, I've read some of your posts.Any conservative can read what they want to, it’s the real reading that bothers them.
I do not deny that gasoline and diesel engines pollute, but I do not consider CO2 (or CO) pollution, and the rest is minutely insignificant compared to, say, coal power. Take your frustation out on coal power plants rather than cars, and advocate nuclear power plants as a solution rather than the ridiculous Kyoto protocol.In one year, a new 2001 model small car, traveling the average
12,513.2 miles per year, getting 28.7 miles to the gallon, using 436
gallons/year, spews into the air we breathe*:
_ 8,725 lbs of carbon dioxide (CO2)
_ 193 lbs of carbon monoxide (CO)
_ 5.7 lbs of hydrocarbons
_ 18 lbs of nitrogen oxide (NOx)
_ smaller amounts of benzene, formaldehyde, volatile organic
compounds, and other toxic materials.
That must have been tough on him.He's still smarting over Rosie getting kicked off The View.
This is a respectable argument, one which I have used for other subjects. However, the evidence leans strongly in favor of human activity having no impact on global warming, negating the argument for this topic. The problem is that people are not shown the evidence, they only hear the "scientific consensus" from the media. Scientists also used to think the the earth was flat and that 10% DDT was a perfect solution for keeping bugs out of the house and lice out of your hair.If it is because of us and we do nothing, we loose.
If it is because of us and we do something, it might help.
If it is not because of us and we do nothing, nothing lost.
If it is not because of us and we do something, it's just a pain, but still
nothing lost.
Exactly. Just take a look at Al Gore's "carbon footprint".I believe that most of the high profile people who are pushing an eco friendly lifestyle and selling carbon offsets travel around in private jets, limos and live in huge homes.
Not to be mean, but I don't believe you. Where's the evidence?Releasing otherwise Sequestered Carbon in the form of CO2 by burning fossil fuels has been identified as one of the primary areas where we are causing a difference.
Again, not to be mean, but this is one of my larger complaints about most liberal politicians. Democrats can sell anything in the name of jobs. Just because it makes jobs doesn't mean it's good for the economy. For examply, look at the CCC, where the government "employed" everybody as a guise for giving taxpayers' money to the unemployed. One example is of a CCC crew going through an area digging ditches, and later another CCC crew filling in all the ditches. There was no actual production or benefit. Similarly, an industry to stop harmless gases is just as useful as it sounds, even if it does make jobs. You have to prove that the gases are harmful.Ironically, this is as good for our economy as it is bad. The emergence of an industry to remove and sequester pollutants and carbon have made jobs for many and there are still lots of opportunities.
Actually, experiments have shown that plants in a CO2-rich environment grow larger, have a much higher crop yield, and require less water than the same plants in a normal atmosphere. Plus, plants convert CO2 into oxygen, so the larger plants would simply be able to convert even more, offsetting fluctuations in total CO2, cause by man or nature. (Personally, I see this as a God-created check and balance mechanism, but we're getting pretty far afield as it is.)North americans have been blamed for much of the gasses that caused the present warming trend and they (may) stand to benefit most by improved climate in the grain belt and other argricultural areas while other countries who have had a hard break will get even worse.
To address the whole issue, I think most of our man-caused-global-warming-hype to stem from a desire to restrict mankind's production, existance, etc., by a few far-out radical nature worshipers who hate civilization along with America-haters who hate the U.S., and who greatly support this and other topics (ozone hole, global cooling, UN earth summit, gun control, lead in electronics) as means of justifying their ends. Sorry, I had to stoop to Chris' level at least once!
Speaking of which, most of what Chris says reminds me of something that C.S. Lewis wrote:
"The vain person wants praise, applause, admiration, too much and is always angling for it. It is a fault, but a childlike and even (in an odd way) a humble fault. It shows that you are not yet completely contented with your own admiration. You value other people enough to want them to look at you. You are, in fact, still human. The real black, diabolical Pride comes when you look down on others so much that you do not care what they think of you."
Who here thinks that Chris cares what any of us say in reply to him?
Quote:
Releasing otherwise Sequestered Carbon in the form of CO2 by burning fossil fuels has been identified as one of the primary areas where we are causing a difference.
"Not to be mean, but I don't believe you. Where's the evidence? "
I see this as self evident. Millions of years ago, organic compounds got trapped deep in the earth and turned into oil and coal. Nature never intended for these things to be released at the rate that humans are causing. The hydrocarbons used to be in the ground and would stay there for millions of years longer if human activity did not ,with great effort, extract these materials and convert them into various gasses, liquids and solids.
I'm not going to get suckered into a battle of references (and there are many many) but I do believe the trends measured in such things as ice cores and sediments show CO2 concentration trends that roughly match the output of industrialization.
A few years ago I was more apt to side with climate change being a coincidence masked by our limited knowledge of past weather but after reading or scanning countless articles from the likes of Science news, IEEE Spectrum, Nature, Scientific American etc, I am increasingly convinced that the effect is real. I still am waiting to see how significant human activity is on the future climate though.
Quote:
Actually, experiments have shown that plants in a CO2-rich environment grow larger, have a much higher crop yield, and require less water than the same plants in a normal atmosphere. Plus, plants convert CO2 into oxygen, so the larger plants would simply be able to convert even more, offsetting fluctuations in total CO2, cause by man or nature.
but that's not the issue, its temperature and how that will shift precipitation patterns in hard to live in places like Africa. It doesnt matter if you have the ideal gas mixture for growing if its too dry. Besides, only some plants benefit.
Here is just one recent reference.
"Trouble for forests of the northern U.S. Rockies? (Science News 6/16/2007)
Climate change over the coming decades may cause forests in northern portions of the U.S. Rockies to stop absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and instead become net emitters of the gas. "
The present effects of human induced climate change are still small and future predictions may be little more than a large problem but the underlying fear is that it may proceed to an unseen trigger point that will unleash massive and rapid change like an ice age (or the opposite of that whatever you call it) (I'm not too worried about that though)
Besides, the contest has another purpose, to support inventions that save energy. Completely separate from global warming is the problem that we are running short on traditionaland inexpensive sources of energy. The two goals are often synergistic.
Releasing otherwise Sequestered Carbon in the form of CO2 by burning fossil fuels has been identified as one of the primary areas where we are causing a difference.
"Not to be mean, but I don't believe you. Where's the evidence? "
I see this as self evident. Millions of years ago, organic compounds got trapped deep in the earth and turned into oil and coal. Nature never intended for these things to be released at the rate that humans are causing. The hydrocarbons used to be in the ground and would stay there for millions of years longer if human activity did not ,with great effort, extract these materials and convert them into various gasses, liquids and solids.
I'm not going to get suckered into a battle of references (and there are many many) but I do believe the trends measured in such things as ice cores and sediments show CO2 concentration trends that roughly match the output of industrialization.
A few years ago I was more apt to side with climate change being a coincidence masked by our limited knowledge of past weather but after reading or scanning countless articles from the likes of Science news, IEEE Spectrum, Nature, Scientific American etc, I am increasingly convinced that the effect is real. I still am waiting to see how significant human activity is on the future climate though.
Quote:
Actually, experiments have shown that plants in a CO2-rich environment grow larger, have a much higher crop yield, and require less water than the same plants in a normal atmosphere. Plus, plants convert CO2 into oxygen, so the larger plants would simply be able to convert even more, offsetting fluctuations in total CO2, cause by man or nature.
but that's not the issue, its temperature and how that will shift precipitation patterns in hard to live in places like Africa. It doesnt matter if you have the ideal gas mixture for growing if its too dry. Besides, only some plants benefit.
Here is just one recent reference.
"Trouble for forests of the northern U.S. Rockies? (Science News 6/16/2007)
Climate change over the coming decades may cause forests in northern portions of the U.S. Rockies to stop absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and instead become net emitters of the gas. "
The present effects of human induced climate change are still small and future predictions may be little more than a large problem but the underlying fear is that it may proceed to an unseen trigger point that will unleash massive and rapid change like an ice age (or the opposite of that whatever you call it) (I'm not too worried about that though)
Besides, the contest has another purpose, to support inventions that save energy. Completely separate from global warming is the problem that we are running short on traditionaland inexpensive sources of energy. The two goals are often synergistic.
-
Chris Smith
- Posts: 4325
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Bieber Ca.
-
Chris Smith
- Posts: 4325
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Bieber Ca.
What is that?
The world picked up 5 billion new heads in just 100 years, all releasing normally Pent-up warming gasses into the environment, all polluting, all using up hydrocarbons, all in need of more and more energy.
Didn’t happen in the last century, its happening now which means the earth has to cope with that mess as well, which is not what nature has had to put up with in the past, which means any comparison to the past is purely bogus. [ Broken logic]
I have been on this planet long enough to listen to the lies of man, watch his screw ups, watch the out of control growth rates, watch the traffic jams increase to outrageous levels, watch him degrade the world and its atmosphere through more and more energy usage, watch him attempt to fix things and then watch them back slide,.... and so far this last ½ century were only continuing to lose ground but on the bright side were raising more birds with their head in the sand from birth.
Unfortunately they produce more flatulence than the cows we breed?
But what the hell, the world is infinite, it will just go on, and on, and on, and our air will get cleaner, our water will increase, and our HC energy will never run out as long as we just burry our heads in the sand like an uneducated Conservative.
A Duhhh moment for sure.
The world picked up 5 billion new heads in just 100 years, all releasing normally Pent-up warming gasses into the environment, all polluting, all using up hydrocarbons, all in need of more and more energy.
Didn’t happen in the last century, its happening now which means the earth has to cope with that mess as well, which is not what nature has had to put up with in the past, which means any comparison to the past is purely bogus. [ Broken logic]
I have been on this planet long enough to listen to the lies of man, watch his screw ups, watch the out of control growth rates, watch the traffic jams increase to outrageous levels, watch him degrade the world and its atmosphere through more and more energy usage, watch him attempt to fix things and then watch them back slide,.... and so far this last ½ century were only continuing to lose ground but on the bright side were raising more birds with their head in the sand from birth.
Unfortunately they produce more flatulence than the cows we breed?
But what the hell, the world is infinite, it will just go on, and on, and on, and our air will get cleaner, our water will increase, and our HC energy will never run out as long as we just burry our heads in the sand like an uneducated Conservative.
A Duhhh moment for sure.
You are changing the subject, just because there is man-made pollution and traffic jams doesn't mean that all negative environmental effects are from man. I hate smog and traffic more than the next person, but the discussion is about CO2. CO2 is not particulate matter. Coal power plants pumping out smoke and soot is bad, but the CO2 that they make is totally negligable by comparison. Like I said, worry about the important things like real pollution, not fake CO2 pollution.Chris Smith wrote:Only thing you have to do is remove your head from the sand, look at 1000 cities around the world, read the statistics that tell you over 100,000 people each year die from particulate matter [smog] in these cities just in the US alone, see the color of the air, watch the snail pace traffic, and well, gee, wake up and stop lying like a Enron Republican presidential candidate.
-
Chris Smith
- Posts: 4325
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Bieber Ca.
Ok So I get lost here and you need to let me know. You are giving me a typical response where you blame man for everything. Is that liberal or conservative I forget??
Or does it really matter,
Maybe it's you who's head is in the sand
Maybe you are the "sheep"
Maybe your ear is being pissed in and being told it's rain???
Scary how much I can remember of your posts isn't it.....
Just keep following the media and obeying.... cay you say baaaa???
I know you can......
Or does it really matter,
Maybe it's you who's head is in the sand
Maybe you are the "sheep"
Maybe your ear is being pissed in and being told it's rain???
Scary how much I can remember of your posts isn't it.....
Just keep following the media and obeying.... cay you say baaaa???
I know you can......
-
Chris Smith
- Posts: 4325
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Bieber Ca.
Sounds like denial is your thing.
Im sure its easier than reality, reading, watching, or remembering.
After all, you have responsibilities to do, money to make, a job to handle, and reality must really cramp your style?
Wake up, what else will you do with your life, read the sports page on the toilet or enjoy the self proclaimed communist and fascist Rupert Murdoch who brings you Fox TV? [sorry, that takes more reading?]
Im sure the Simpson’s are more interesting to you than what happens to the world?
The Only ostrich here in denial is you.
Reading and education,.... well that takes an effort, and after all you have fox, DC, and the rest of the network to lie to you.
Its called the Bahhh syndrome, and you exhibit it well.
Just one more sheep not wanting to get that education because denial and squawking is easier.
Im sure its easier than reality, reading, watching, or remembering.
After all, you have responsibilities to do, money to make, a job to handle, and reality must really cramp your style?
Wake up, what else will you do with your life, read the sports page on the toilet or enjoy the self proclaimed communist and fascist Rupert Murdoch who brings you Fox TV? [sorry, that takes more reading?]
Im sure the Simpson’s are more interesting to you than what happens to the world?
The Only ostrich here in denial is you.
Reading and education,.... well that takes an effort, and after all you have fox, DC, and the rest of the network to lie to you.
Its called the Bahhh syndrome, and you exhibit it well.
Just one more sheep not wanting to get that education because denial and squawking is easier.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 101 guests