CO2 equivalent. I see you didn't read the methodology, not a surprise. Which metric would you choose for global warming potential?
U.S. summer a global warming preview, scientists say
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
CO2 equivalent. I see you didn't read the methodology, not a surprise. Which metric would you choose for global warming potential?
With respect, if that is the case, then there is no solution to this issue; any actions taken today simply defer a pre-determined eventuality and considering that the global population increases geometrically, the actual amount of time that it is deferred is negligible at best (maybe a few generations).
I'm not saying that as I don't agree with the theories in play on AGW... All I'm saying is that the AGW arguments (to date) don't address the root cause of the problem that they've identified.
With most of our power coming from hydro there is a finite amount of input energy so bigger generation is not an option. Not sure if the generators themselves or the turbines can be made any more efficient either. So that leaves efficiencies in distribution which is also being constantly upgraded. As for consumption we are now at the point of diminishing returns in terms of efficiency in most homes and businesses.
Still stuck on CO2 are ya?Potential? Well lets assume CO2 isn't potentialy as harmful as we're led to believe.
Last edited:
Really? How many homes are upgrading just their insulation? Buildings represent one of the largest sources available for efficiency gains.
Building Energy Management Skyrocketing, Johnson Controls Survey Finds · Environmental Management & Energy News · Environmental Leader
Pitching limited solutions to a problem that scretches across many varying systems loses something in the sales brochure doesn't it?
No, but I see you're as thick as ever. eCO2 -equivalent- takes the radiative forcing of greenhouse gases produced as well as the resident times of these gases in the atmosphere and transforms them into one figure. It's pretty standard. You could easily change it to g eCH4, or g eNO2, or whatever equivalent you wish.
Durp.
Is that for environmental or financial reasons?
That's great but you're out in lal la land because the things you posted have nothing to do with my comment on you seeing the big picture.
In our area there is a lot of upgrading happening.New gas furnaces, insulation, windows and appliances. Because of our mild climate and the large number of newer homes insulation upgrades for the most part do not do a lot of energy saving.
That's one of the biggest reasons that I am skeptical of the entire movement. It's really hard to get behind something when the core issue isn't even on the radar
I agree that there are problems with unrealistic demands from people who don't know where food and energy come from. People who run energy projects from a distance also fit into that category. A fossil fuel generating station for example can be hundreds or thousands of miles from the coal fields, tar sands, or shale gas wells where their fuel is extracted. As well the impacts of there pollution, whether brown haze or higher temperatures often aren't easily attributed to the electricity. Especially if such a person doesn't want to see it for personal financial reasons. Lots of us are too busy to have time to look past the grindstone.
But nimbyism has to be countered. For example, some communities are putting up small wind genertors on power poles and structurally capa ble buildings. Some are doing the same with solar electric, and encouraging residents as well, where people can see how little impact such developments can have in comparison.
Comparing all the factors around energy developments from economoc/ecologic, structural, financial, social, cultural, agricultural, fisheries, entertainment, etc and their impacts on, and how they are impacted by, climate change and our energy options is a relatively new process. But a worthwhile one.
The "movement" has a theme song.
-Yakety Sax- Music - YouTube
How many wind gennys does it take to smelt a tonne of copper to make two more wind gennys?
Is China going to? India?
Kyoto was a disaster and China never did sign on did they? They said they would.
No wonder why Canada did an about face this time. They didn't feel like playing the sucker again.
No they're not. Again you are touting the party line. EVERYONE knows that without China reducing emmisions the US will NEVER reduce them. Everyone knows that China will never cave in to you people. So the GWers try and say that China is ahead of everyone and give them a Developing Nation status. The GWers need to save face with China as China simply smiles, nods, and says No.
Do they now?
FEAR
Maybe some one can explain in simple scientific ways why Alaska and far eastern Russia were on water rationing until late May and then their snows came. Now they are having trouble with a lack of snow melt? Also who come it is still snowing lightly from time to time in the Cascades and the Sierra's? Maybe it is a Cooling Trend rather than Global Warming?
Oh right, you were talking about CFC's produced in the enrichment of uranium. Then I posted a report that analyzed life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from many different sources of electrical production. That is a much bigger picture than CFC's for uranium production.
Are you purposefully being ironic? It's really funny. :lol:
Opinionum commenta delet dies, naturae judicia confirmat.
- Cicero, De Natura Deorum, II, ii: 5.
What the scientists are telling us is that global warming will, ironically, have the opposite effect. The warming of the ocean currents that generate global weather patterns will cause much harsher (and colder) winters in the temperate zone resulting in a dramatic decrease in the world's food production. We would do well to take heed before it is too late, for "time obliterates the fictions of opinion, and confirms the decisions of nature."
- Cicero, De Natura Deorum, II, ii: 5.
What the scientists are telling us is that global warming will, ironically, have the opposite effect. The warming of the ocean currents that generate global weather patterns will cause much harsher (and colder) winters in the temperate zone resulting in a dramatic decrease in the world's food production. We would do well to take heed before it is too late, for "time obliterates the fictions of opinion, and confirms the decisions of nature."
No I wasn't talking about CFC and nukes. I was talking about your CO2 OCD causing you to ignore reality and the entire scope of planetary functions.
Ok. Then if I have this right, the science is ok about climate change, it is just the fact that you are being told about it that bothers you?