|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Coal power = 20k miles of pollution?
Since I'm moving I just changed my power to wind power from coal... but one one of the energy websites I read said that coal power emits as much pollution for every 1,000 kw's (about 1 month of electricity) as driving 20,000 miles in one's car.
Does that sound accurate to anyone? or did I misread and maybe they meant 1 year of of coal power = driving 20k miles? Thanks!
__________________
One's standard of living is definitively determined by the size of their reef. - me We live with each other, not for ourselves - Protect our planet |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Surely it would depend on what car you drive? whether its economical car or a US gas guzzler would make a big difference...
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
true... but if it is 1 month average kilowatt usage, that's a lot of extra pollution every year for even the economy car drivers I know. If this is true, it almost seems to me that we need more focus on the energy industry instead of the petrolium industry (which is easier to harp on because we can actually see the output vs electric companies - I have no idea where the nearest one is to me)
__________________
One's standard of living is definitively determined by the size of their reef. - me We live with each other, not for ourselves - Protect our planet |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What do you term as pollution. C02?
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Mahatma Gandhi |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Mahatma Gandhi |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
carbon monoxide,nitrogen dioxide,soot and other irritants. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
All animals generate C02. So species extinction actually reduces global warming.
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The authors originally claimed to have observed a global cooling trend, which turned out to be noise rather than a long term trend and was a whole lot smaller when they corrected their methodological errors. When you read the paper itself, it's basically a rehash of their old work only they've moderated their claims a lot. They no longer claim to see a global cooling trend, but a slower rate of warming than the models, and only in the tropics. The uncertainty of the models and observational measurements actually overlap though, so it's not clear how much if any the models and observations actually differ. The paper is far from the smoking gun the news article or press release play it up as. It doesn't demonstrate with any great certainty that the models and observations are significantly different or if they do, whether the error lies in the modeling or in the data collection. It certainly doesn't vindicate anthropogenic CO2 or show that the current trend is irreversible. Here's a paper that actually addresses how the discrepancies relate to the uncertainty of the models and measurements. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL029875.shtml
__________________
Lanikai, kahakai nani, aloha no au ia 'oe. A hui hou kakou. Last edited by greenbean36191; 12/13/2007 at 10:49 AM. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Read the actual paper. The data presented doesn't support the claims made in the news article, nor do similar papers on the subject such as the one I linked to. The amount of difference between the observations and the models depends a lot on which data you pick. Even with the data the authors picked, the range of uncertainty between the data and models overlap, so there is no way to say there is a real discrepancy (which is what the article I linked to addresses). Other data puts the data and model even closer together.
How close they are also depends a lot on the time scale you look at. The models don't include noise, while real world measurements do. As a result you get periods like those the authors originally wrote about where it looks like there is a cooling trend when in fact it's just noise and the overall trend is still warming like the models predict.
__________________
Lanikai, kahakai nani, aloha no au ia 'oe. A hui hou kakou. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Even in the series "Planet Earth" they say it's a natural process... but even with global warming, another ice age will still come many many years from now.
To me, this doesn't mean that global warming is a hoax and that we should continue to be as wasteful as we can and any means to prevent/reduce waste is unnecessary and costly waste in itself. or that cfc's and other ozone reducing chemicals should continue to be used without control. same with carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, soot and other irritants produced by coal/fossil fuels being "insignificant" - acid rain does have an impact on humans and wildlife Finally, since all animals generate C02, the thought process of extinction of species actually reduces global warming (if in fact is exists) is benificial is selfish, biased and irresponsible. If Corals die, then algae/plankton and then fish etc. 70% of the earths surface being a wasteland would suck and impact climate changes dramatically. (algae produce 90%+ of atmosphere O2 etc.) Humans aren't doing the world a favor by replacing species with themselves. $0.02
__________________
One's standard of living is definitively determined by the size of their reef. - me We live with each other, not for ourselves - Protect our planet |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
there is more and more evidence showing that our current rising temperatures are no where near being outside earths average ranges since the beginning of life...
Plus if the government was to believe this could be slightest bit dangerous.. they could do multiple things to slow down and possibly stop the rising temperatures everyone is "Ohhh so worried about"... What about a satellite 400,000-500,000 miles out away from earth , that blocks the sun out just enough to shorten our days by 1 or 2 hours...? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Exactly. Anyone who argues that the greenhouse effect or warming trends aren't natural is either being dishonest or doesn't have a clue what they're talking about to put it bluntly. That's not the question though. The question is how much (not if) anthropogenic forcings change the natural trend and how is it going to affect us.
Quote:
__________________
Lanikai, kahakai nani, aloha no au ia 'oe. A hui hou kakou. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
When will some people wake up? Goverments around the world are not helping to change people attitudes, with there snails pace on action if any really. And certain other goverments frankly trying to mess up any plans to sort it all out. It's a disgrace! The meetings in Bali this week were a great opportunity to get some action going. But as usual the whole 2 weeks was spent on trying to persuade the US to join in. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
The only action proposed is to reduce energy consumption by 50-70% over the next 40 years. How do we do that with a growing population? Oh, I know, windmills.
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
so what do you suggest, we do nothing?
we have to start using renewables and doing things different no matter how many people live on this planet. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Don't reduce the herd, just get more hay.
If you want to save this planet, why are there no limits on population? Let's suppose we find a way to reduce our individual impact on the environment by 50% over the next 40 years. The population will double by then and we will have made ZERO progress on the problem. If things get as bad as are being forcast, maybe that will reduce the herd to manageable levels. If you are afraid to address the core problem, then fighting symptoms might help you feel better, but you will still die. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Wind turbines are part of the solution. There is no one solution.
__________________
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Mahatma Gandhi |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Mahatma Gandhi |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I am against killing, but I do not support unlimited population. If you support unlimited population, then you support unlimited use of natural resources. You can't have it both ways. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
^^ I agree completely =) but I'm not sure how population controls can be "enforced" in most of the world. Culture conflicts, policing, politics etc. are just a few barriers.
Medicine and helping the starving/less fortunate isn't helping the problem either (though they probably hurt the planet less than the fortunate - per capita) Until people "feel" the problem in their home (or someone like the Pope says "stop making babies or you will go to HELL" - if that will even work), their actions won't change. =( edit: forgot to mention... culture changes usually occure by generation. I would assume a political one is about the same... so maybe there will be "bigger" changes several years/decades from now. The unforunate thing is lives are too short so later generations never really see/experience the world how previous generations have - so they may think 1 coral per 100sq ft. is "natural" because they never saw it when it was 100's per 100sq ft.
__________________
One's standard of living is definitively determined by the size of their reef. - me We live with each other, not for ourselves - Protect our planet Last edited by chrissreef; 12/18/2007 at 12:07 AM. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|