• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global Warmers Promote Dark Ages, Permanently

It's probably worth pointing out that while we don't currently have a credible solution to aircraft emissions, they only account for 4% of global CO2 emissions. Cattle account for far more (in terms of effective CO2 emissions, though obviously actually methane), and as I understand it, cattle account for more than the entire worlds transport system combined. By stopping eating beef and reducing dairy, you can do far more good than by putting billions into alternative jet fuel research.

And as to "dark ages" - the OP should be aware that the average frenchman emits less than one third of the CO2 of the average american citizen, and yet france has higher life expectancy, equal literacy rates and isn't too far off on the happiness and quality of life indexes. Clearly CO2 emissions aren't as closely linked to standards of living as you like to imply.
 
stokes234 said:
It's probably worth pointing out that while we don't currently have a credible solution to aircraft emissions, they only account for 4% of global CO2 emissions. Cattle account for far more (in terms of effective CO2 emissions, though obviously actually methane), and as I understand it, cattle account for more than the entire worlds transport system combined. By stopping eating beef and reducing dairy, you can do far more good than by putting billions into alternative jet fuel research.
Click to expand...

CSIRO are working on breeds of cattle and sheep and microbial solutions to reduce gut fermentation that that produce significantly fewer methane emissions, although that's no reason not to reduce ones meat/diary consumption.

http://www.csiro.au/files/files/ppiu.pdf
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
:confused:

Who says it couldn't? Problem is, all the solutions will result in higher prices for the consumer. But at least it would actually be a solution, unlike some government "solutions" like corn ethanol, which doesn't actually increase the supply of energy at all and impose higher costs on the consumer.
Click to expand...

Isn't that how a market works? Prices don't just go down, they go up and down. That's normal.
 
mhaze said:
Last I heard those wonderful inventions you called "rail" didn't run across the Atlantic.

The next JREF convention in Vegas, why don't you suggest everyone go there by rail? It's a largely liberal crowd, that should go over really well.

No...wait....It wouldn't go over well at all....
Click to expand...

Aint any ocean between me and Vegas. Or between here and Portland. Why are there not as many trains as there are airlines connecting?

Air travel is over-used. Oceans are only an excuse when you have a dealine.
 
They want all of us ordinary folk to basically go back to the dark-ages, and they probably want us to be about as educated as well (after all educated people can always criticize and challenge government), while those in power are able to do whatever they want regardless of how environmentally friendly it is.

It's complete hypocrisy and the whole thing is about control
 
INRM said:
They want all of us ordinary folk to basically go back to the dark-ages, and they probably want us to be about as educated as well (after all educated people can always criticize and challenge government), while those in power are able to do whatever they want regardless of how environmentally friendly it is.

It's complete hypocrisy and the whole thing is about control
Click to expand...

Who's "They"? Are they anything like "Them!"?
 
Wow, this went to hell quick. Don't try to teach those who are convinced learning is a liberal lie guys. There are enough reasonable conservatives out there that talking to the outright CT spouted here is unneeded.

Reality won't change just because they want it to, and they are just going to turn everything into 'I'm right, reality is on my side'.

Just let it go. Let's talk about the new, amazing tech that proves these clowns wrong.
 
tyr_13 said:
Just let it go. Let's talk about the new, amazing tech that proves these clowns wrong.
Click to expand...

Hear, hear!

http://cleantechnica.com/2010/11/04...uld-turn-windows-into-solar-power-generators/

Scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy have developed a material that could turn an ordinary-looking window into a solar panel. If developed successfully, the breakthrough means that any window could do double duty as a solar panel, and entire glass-walled buildings could be designed around their capacity to generate solar energy. Aside from their use in residences and office buildings, transparent solar panels also raise the potential to add value other structures such as solar greenhouses.
Transparent Thin Film Solar Material and “Fullerenes”

The new material was developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Brookhaven National Laboratory. Its keynote is the use of fullerenes, which are molecules composed of 60 carbon atoms, shaped roughly like a soccer ball. Fullerines have the ability to assemble themselves into a honeycomb-like pattern of hexagons. When they are applied to a polymer they end up pushing the polymer chains to the edges of the hexagons, and that makes the resulting material transparent.
Click to expand...
 
stokes234 said:
It's probably worth pointing out that while we don't currently have a credible solution to aircraft emissions, they only account for 4% of global CO2 emissions. Cattle account for far more (in terms of effective CO2 emissions, though obviously actually methane), and as I understand it, cattle account for more than the entire worlds transport system combined. By stopping eating beef and reducing dairy, you can do far more good than by putting billions into alternative jet fuel research.

And as to "dark ages" - the OP should be aware that the average frenchman emits less than one third of the CO2 of the average american citizen, and yet france has higher life expectancy, equal literacy rates and isn't too far off on the happiness and quality of life indexes. Clearly CO2 emissions aren't as closely linked to standards of living as you like to imply.
Click to expand...

Cattle methane is simply a recycling of carbon already present in the active carbon cycle and totally irrelevent to any consideration of issues of the additions of carbon to the biosphere from previously sequestered carbon reserves. The latter yields composition changes of our atmosphere that decreases the rate at which our planet re-radiates the energy it absorbs from sunlight. The former, just like the carbon in our exhalations are a part of the active carbon cycle which is constantly flowing from the air to be built up into sugars and carbohydrates in plants, which then get consumed by animals, which we break down for energy by combining with oxygen, generating CO2 that we exhale back into the active cycle. Though the path through this cycle is complex the system is balanced and somewhat buffered. Our Anthropogenic forcing is primarily due to the fact that we are tapping reserves from outside of this balanced system and adding it into the system at a level and rate that is overwhelming the buffering system and sequestration rates.

Rather simplistically stated.
 
bit_pattern said:
CSIRO are working on breeds of cattle and sheep and microbial solutions to reduce gut fermentation that that produce significantly fewer methane emissions, although that's no reason not to reduce ones meat/diary consumption.

http://www.csiro.au/files/files/ppiu.pdf
Click to expand...

As a personal choice, I see nothing wrong with the concept, promotion and advocacy. However, nothing that is essential or necessary from a climate influence perspective.
 
I disagree, although I found your post to be very thought provoking and I do see where you are coming from, but it would seem to me that you are thinking in the very long term, whereas in the very short term the sudden explosion of industrial-scale farming and the pronounced radiative forcing of methane as compared to carbon has to be having a significant impact on the current problem we face. AT the very least, it is an unwelcome addition to the sudden rise in previously sequestered carbon that has very suddenly entered the atmosphere, cumulatively that has to be a big problem, even if it does balance itself out eventually in the grand accounting book. At this point, anything we can do to reduce GHG's has to be an imperative.
 
Last edited:
leftysergeant said:
Aint any ocean between me and Vegas. Or between here and Portland. Why are there not as many trains as there are airlines connecting?

Air travel is over-used. Oceans are only an excuse when you have a dealine.
Click to expand...

Shipping is a bigger problem. Not without solution, in fact, there are a lot of technological options available, but a huge issue (and opportunity) all on its own.
 
bit_pattern said:
/// At this point, anything we can do to reduce GHG's has to be an imperative.
Click to expand...

"WE" must of course exclude Al Gore, and Barack Obama, and the tens of thousands of lovelies flying and driving to all the environmental conferences, and.....

THEY preach. YOU, way over there in the corner, PRACTICE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom