isn't it funny even if you take water out of the equation, CO2 still equates to less then 6% of total greenhouse gasses and man contributes a grand total of slightly over 1% of that if you take into account the amount of CO2 we breath out. so if man was to just eliminate himself competely from the planet the total reduction in greenhouse gasses that would be eliminated would be equal to about nothing. thats right less than 1% if all of man kind become totally extinct. But when you are honest and add water vapor back in because even the global warming scientist admit it is a greenhouse gas total CO2 gasses by ALL forms amount to less then 2% and man contributes about .000006% I.E. WE DONT MEAN SQUAT.
more and more scientist are starting to realize this and starting to speak out against it finally. it's a proven fact that mars, venus, and virtually every other planet in the solar system is showing signs of global warming and man is not on those planets thus something outside our atmosphere is causing it, you know like the largest heat source in the solar system being at the highest level of activity in recorded history.
30 yrs ago the entire scientific community just knew we where headed for an ice age. well they were wrong, well all except one guy that was run out of the scientific community cause he was saying we were actually causing global warming, now supposedly the entire scientific community just KNOWS we are headed for global warming and once again they are wrong, and once again anyone that dares to stand up and say hey this is BS is ostercised until recently again. the earth goes through cycles, always has, and even after man is so stupid as to wipe himself off the face of the planet trying to eliminate, what ever scare tactic is pushed in order to control the uniformed masses it will continue to go in cycles.

Basically it's pretty haughty of you to think you have any control over nature, and to think your all powerful, truth is man is insignificant, get used to the idea you will get a lot further. We can't have caused it anymore than we could cause the "hole i the ozone" so we can't cure it (even though they claim the reduction in cfc's stopped the hole the yearly maps show it is exactly the same size and location it was 20yrs ago which btw was also shown to be there 40 yrs ago too, it's never changed we didnt' cause it we can't fix it, and man is incapable of wiping out the ozone layer either)

 

Very well stated. This is a man who has done his homework. A lot of scientists support the Greenhouse Gas Global Warming Theory by concensus. But by the same token, in the Middle Ages, the planets and sun revolved around the Earth by consensus as well. If you get down to real science, you have to be able to test the theorys in a repeatable fashion. If something jams it up, you have to start over again. So for us to accurately perform global warming studies, one needs to eliminate factors and see what happens. This has not been done. For example, has anyone tried eliminating human influence from a control environment? This is obviously difficult to do, but I suspect that if you did, it would make very little difference. Has anyone conducted a study to see if Global Warming results in increased or reduced rainfall and cloud formation. Increased cloud formation is more likely, since more heat = more evaporation = more clouds = more cloudcover = less sunlight reaching low altitudes = less heat and less warming. So it really mostly resists any significant changes in temperature on way or the other. If you start to cool down, the opposite effect happens.

There was a time period in the late Middle Ages, where according to the records found in glaciers, the Earth was very significantly warmer than it is today. In fact, records indicate a Global average 5 degrees higher than it is today. I guess all those automobiles and factories being built in those days had a very significant effect on global climate.

 

Plese provide your source for this, and name the other greenhouse gases, other than water, that account for more warming than CO2.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas CO2 causes about 9% - 26%, when water vapor is included; and it's the largest contributor, not counting water.

We don't have any long term data for planets other than the earth, so showing that they warmed up somewhat in the last 10 - 15 years doesn't mean much.

In any case, please provide a reference for that "every other planet" -- I've heard of Mars and know that the Earth is warming, but haven't heard anything about the other planets.

The cycle is correct; however, we're now warmer, and has a higher CO2 concentration in the air than anytime in the last couple of million years.

Even just a few years ago, many people have denied that global warming is happening. Now, due to overhelming evidence most people now accept it as a fact, but many of the same people now claim it's due to some natural source, like the Sun. That may partly be true, but the because of the readings are, practically speaking, off the chart, that there's more to that and human impact most likely play a significant role.

Decreasing CO2 emission is not control over nature.

That is incorrect. Here's all you want to know about the ozone hole: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_hole

 

Here you go
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
later... mike...

 

aurgathor we don't have actual definative information about earth for a couple million years in fact we don't have it for a couple hundred years honestly. 800 yrs ago the climate in england was equivilant to southern california, somehow it seems it's a little cooler now
As to the ozone layer you have bought into the BS like everyone else, there never was a hole that wasn't there all along, it hasn't changed it never did all we managed to do was increase ground level ozone levels (R12 is heavier than air and never ever made it to the ozone layer EVER. truth is if man didn't do a thing and ozone was not a self replenishing natural phenomenon the entire ozone layer would be gone inside of 10 days (ozone is unstable) the ozone layer is a natural reaction caused by the radiation from the sun reacting on our atmosphere we can NOT deplete it, we can NOT increase the thickness, nor can we eliminate it. Do a little research and you will find out this is FACT not political BS
The global warming is political BS, the un report saying how it's all mans fault is based on misleading information and the scientist that wrote the paper the UN report is based on all are screaming wanting their names taken off of it because they took it out of context.
and exactly how much CO2 have we increased? do you know? bet you don't cause if you look TOTAL CO2 in the atmosphere is how much? since 1954 the Mauna Loa monitoring station (considered the most accurate in the world ) shows a 19% increse, this is the number used by the chicken littles of the world, do you know what that amounts to in total atmosphere amounts? it amounts to a .0000062% increase yes you read that right there is read them 5 zeros after the decimal point before you start to see a number.
Now the "overwhelming evidence is not so overwhelming when you take politics out of it, and only uninformed people or people with a agenda take it as fact the ones that really know take it as a THEORY only.
Fact is the sun has more affect on our global temps than anything short of a nuclear war that man can do. you really need to learn where CO2 comes from. more can be associated with increased population and the exhaling of air by all living beings than all teh cars in the world and one volcanic eruption puts out more CO2 and other greenhouses gases in 2 hr than all mans total output in history.

 

I actually like this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:All_palaeotemps.png better, especially since it lists the sources of the data used to make the chart.

 

There is a field called Paleoclimatology, and here are some sample techniques: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#Techniques_of_paleoclimatology

There's is an answer in common misconceptions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_Hole#CFCs_are_.22too_heavy.22_to_reach_the_s tratosphere

Here's another from wiki:
"That ozone depletion takes place is not seriously disputed in the scientific community. There is a consensus among atmospheric physicists and chemists that the scientific understanding has now reached a level where countermeasures to control CFC emissions are justified, although the decision is ultimately one for policy-makers."

And BTW, I asked for some reference to back up your assertions, and I have not seen a thing.

I didn't read the UN report so I don't know what's in it.

There are more than enough easily measurable attributes to global warming that it is now a measurable fact. What causes it is not fully understood and there's quite a bit of debate on it, though many scientists agree that greenhouse gases have some role in it.

But aside some well known periodic variations, the Sun is a very stable star with a near constant output.

Please provide a reference for the volcanic CO2.

I did a quick search, and found the following at http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html :
"Carbon Dioxide Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times." Whether it's correct or not, we can't do much with volcanoes.

As for learning about CO2 sources -- there are sources that can be reduced, and there are others that can not, either because we have no control over them, or it would be impractical or unethical to reduce or eliminate the CO2 sources.

 

Hello. I discover site searching for ethanol use in non-ffv.

1999 Ethanol Vehicle Contest
The trick to getting it to work seems to be heaters on various exhaust and fuel components. And using experimental catalytic converters to get around Ethanol's low operating temperature and increasing fuel injector size. Since Ethanol fuels run cooler at startup they sometimes garner worst emissions due to the cats not heating up to optimum operating temperatures fast enough to get better emissions. An estimated 80-90% of emissions are done shortly after startup.

In total the conversion garnered 4-4.7% power increases. And the vehicle could only be ran on ethanol. Plus they left out one of the more important details, mileage per gallon. But I was lucky I even found the article.

 

CCMike, just where did you get the idea that 'everybody agrees ethanol is 15-30% LESS EFFICIENT' than regular gasoline ? Who is the 'everybody' you are refering to ? I don't agree, I think you are not understanding the numbers at which you are looking. All of the mpg tests that I have seen you post thus far are done using gasoline engines. How about looking at some tests done using an ethanol specific engine ? Ethanol and E85 are best for ethanol engines, and gasoline is best for low compression ( gasoline ) engines. I would agree that the current crop of flex-fuelers is not the best way to go. I would like to see more E85 and some ethanol 100% available, and stop fooling with E10 and E20. There really aren't any problems with E10 and E20, but, there seems to be alot of consumer resistance ( from lack of understanding, I believe ), so why not leave the ethanol to those of us who already have or are willing to build an engine with enough compression to burn ethanol to its best advantage ? It used to be that leaded and unleaded were sold side by side for many years. Why couldn't we do the same with ethanol ? DF, on work's old cast off 'puter

 

You're right. Not everyone shares the same opinion. Even this brazilian web site thinks that sugar cane into ethanol isn't such a good idea. IMO, ethanol is nothing more than a "Feel Good" political move. It hasn't proven itself to be that efficient, that healthy, or that good for the environment.

http://www.energyrefuge.com/blog/eth...-website-says/

 

aurgathor I just heard the estimate on the current piece of legislation stating what the US can do, you asked for sources well since you won't believe them anyway but you will believe some place like wilkapedia that you yourself could have written the article or I could actually write the article post it in there and post a link to (look at how that site operates, heck there is a post in there PROVING GW not only knew about 9/11 but was actually piloting one of the planes by remote himself) so if you want I can happily do that for you to prove my point since you are using that site as your reference.
As to Ozone depletion believe it or not over 90% of scientist actually KNOW that ozone is created by the reaction of the suns radiation on the earths atmosphere, and that the level or thickness of the ozone is in direct proportion to the level of the proper type of radiation being put out by the sun at any given time which as any short wave operator can tell you the sun has had tremendous amount of solar flare activity in the past few years, and over the past 20 yrs the activity has grown resulting in an increase in the radiation that reacts with earths atmosphere to create ozone thus increasing the ozone layers thickness naturally over that same period of time. isn't that funny, so what are they going to say in 12 yrs when the current cycle of solar activity reduces and the ozone layer begins to thin again? oh wait they won't say a thing because they already know thats going to happen but they also KNOW what is going to happen is the current activity will decrease the global warming so if they can get enough controls in place they can point to and say "see we did it we reduced global warming and now this is the new threat yadda yadda give us more control over you and your lives, and give us more of your money so we have more power" when are you going to learn it has NOTHING to do with he planet and everything to do with power control and money.
Now onto the US current legislation FACT if we flip the switch and turn off the US and I mean completely turn off any and all power usage and production in the country totally wiping out our coutnry it would reduce total MAN MADE CO2 by 20% which amounts to less than .001% of total CO2 production, if man stopped existing entirely I mean became totally extinct was not on the planet to even breath the reduction in total CO2 equals a grand total of 8% reduction. Yoiur figure of man producing 150 times that of the volcanos is propoganda only and invalid the saying they don't know how much volcano's produce is just a way to jimmy up the numbers to prove thier point.
As to global warming read it real close, they are predicting a 2 degree increase in global tempature in 100 yrs well go back to your history and learn the earth has been having global climate changes since the dawn of time, and they were even more drastic than this yet now it's all mans fault. wrong now it's all we can use this to take even more control
Tell ya what when they can PROVE they are right I will listen, I mean they were so right 20 yrs ago when the EXACT same scientist were predicting we were going into an ice age and we had to put emissions controls on cars, reduce coal particulates, yadda yadda. if they were wrong before they can be wrong now, and until they can prove that we actually have ANY affect on the atmosphere I am not willing to give up this country to a bunch of foreign powers to rule.
I won't bother giving references cause like I stated earlier you picked wilkipedia as a source. Truth is no where near a consensus, or even a majority even hold the opinion that we are in global warming, and even less say man is the sole source of it, what you do have is a hand picked bunch working for the government, or the UN that say it at the bidding of the UN or the US government and if any disagree they lose their jobs just like the scientist in 1974 who said we were NOT going into an ice age we were causing global warming lost his funding and his job at a major US university because he was preaching heresy

 

Ok I can't not do this you want some references
Wall street Journal April 12, 2006
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

A consensus not hardly
http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl.../jan_10_05.htm

or how about an early appeal by scientist called the Heidelberg Appeal with over 4000 scientist over 72 of them nobel prize winners asking that the debate be based on actualy science and not scare tactics and supposition
http://sepp.org/policy%20declaration...rg_appeal.html

How about some truth, has the temp rising? yes but don't be confused by the fact like the fact that most of that increase happend prior to 1940 (read the global warming peoples actual stuff they claim in the past 100 yrs forgetting to tell you that it was mostly in the first 40 of that 100) as posted in a UK newspaper
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9%2Fdo0907.xml



Oh heck here is a long list of facts that you don't hear from the people that want to push global warming down our throats.
http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1354.htm
http://www.amspec.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8177
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/avery121606.htm
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17190
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/28375.html


fact is it isn't proven and is dangerous science and tantamount to reading taro cards to figure out how to rule the country. heck many early civilizations believe the reason for droughts was because someone in the village had done evil and the global warming BS is almost the same thing

 

Hey guys. I do not intend to be rude. Ethanol fuel has very little to do with reducing this "global warming" you speak of. When ethanol burns it still produces similar albeit slightly smaller amounts of carbon dioxide but with less mileage per gallon it works out to be about the same amount. But the more noxious elements are greatly reduced. Right now ethanol is overhyped but it is still very rarely available. Plus all of the FFV are not nearly as fuel efficient with E85 as they could be. It's all just more bad publicity for ethanol. For example you could get similar, est 10% variance, gas mileage and the 4% power boost running it in your gas only vehicle! (Not recommended.)

Here is an interesting article that shines a little light on the stats:Howstuffworks. One of many on the subject but this one was new to me. I read it.

Something they make note of is that they(all american car mfc) are only producing FFV in the popular gas guzzlers . Something about an E85 SUV uses 120 fewer gallons of gas with 15k miles per year than a subcompact does. 'Hmm interesting.'

The rumor is that you can produce the stuff at home, legally. THAT never seems to generate any publicity. I guess It just sounds too much like work to produce 2000 gallons of 100% proof ethanol for a year's worth of gas. If only, if only.

 

All, I run E85 every day in a 2008 Silverado (I know, I know).

The cost is IDENTICAL. I get 17 mpg on regular and 13.5 on E85. E85 is $0.60 to $1.00 less than the typical E10 price here in Mid Iowa.

 

So, using basic math, you get approximately 25% LESS gas mileage, and it costs you roughly 25% less per gallon. So, you are saving........ what?????? And you spent more money on this "Flex Fuel Vehicle"..... because why????? I guess some think it's a way to "Stick it to the Arabs". But then, now you're dealing with global macro economics, politics, social impacts, and many other areas that most people don't consider or understand.

Of course, the cost above doesn't even include the AVERAGE subsidie of $0.51 per gallon that the government is contributing to those who produce ethanol. Without the subsidie, most ethanol would cost the same or more than gasoline. Then you would be getting less mileage for more money. And you wonder why you DON'T hear the oil companies and car manufactures whining and complaining about ethanol. Of course, many people think that this money is somehow "PRODUCED" by the government and don't realize that it comes from our taxes. Or that some of your food prices have gone up because of the land being used for ethanol crops instead of other uses. But none of that is all that important, now is it?