CO2 and global warming

(Wayne_J) wrote in message

Global warming? What ever happened to the idea of global cooling that
was all the rage back in the 1970s? The whole truth of the matter is
that we do not have enough information as to say one way or the other.
Accurate measurements of global temperatures were not recorded until
the early 1880s. This means that we are taking the statistical average
of only 120 years and applying these to a region that covers 4.4
billion years. For those on the CO2 band wagon think of this, CO2
makes up only .0002% of the total atmospheric gasses.

Can we have a citation for this please? Most tables of atmospheric
composition I've seen indicate CO2 at 0.032%

Our production
of energy makes up only 13% of the total CO2 output (This includes
both industrial and auto energy requirements.). The rest of the CO2 is
produced of biochemical sources (animal by products such as breathing
and plant decay). To put this all in perspective it would take another
1000 years at our present level of output to increase the atmospheric
CO2 levels to .0003%.

Can we have a citation for this please?

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

September 120, 2004

Rand Simberg wrote:

Fossil fuel resouces are used up at a higher rate by the US per capita
at an absurd rate.

So? We are also using them to create wealth, for us and the planet,
at an absurd rate.

No, you extracting wealth from the planet, for yourself,

What wealth would that be? Black flamable goo? That's hardly wealth. It needs to
be turned *into* wealth.

Scott Lowther wrote:

No, you extracting wealth from the planet, for yourself,

What wealth would that be? Black flamable goo? That's hardly wealth. It needs to
be turned *into* wealth.

So that's alright then? No qualification or limitation on the right to
craete wealth? I suspect that the impoverishment or even forseeable
risk of extinction of life on the planet might be a reasonable
consideration.

Even the Kyoto antis seem to believe that the wealth created is
insufficient to remedy the problems caused by this wealth creation. So
lets buy another SUV, create more wealth, and die in comfort.

Scott Lowther wrote in message :

What wealth would that be? Black flamable goo? That's hardly wealth. It needs to be turned *into* wealth.

By selling it, for instance.

http://www.wtrg.com/daily/crudeoilprice.html

Or by heating it, reacting it, burning it and spilling it, on the
surface of the Earth, and then using that energy to have wars, commit
genocide and destroy the biosphere. Hardly the proper behavior of a
sustainable space faring civilization.

Earth, the Easter Island Planet.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

Martin Frey wrote:

Scott Lowther wrote:

No, you extracting wealth from the planet, for yourself,

What wealth would that be? Black flamable goo? That's hardly wealth. It needs to
be turned *into* wealth.

So that's alright then?

Yes, it is.

No qualification or limitation on the right to
craete wealth?

Why shoudl there be?

I suspect that the impoverishment or even forseeable
risk of extinction of life on the planet might be a reasonable
consideration.

It would be if it *were* reasonable, but it's not.

Even the Kyoto antis seem to believe that the wealth created is
insufficient to remedy the problems caused by this wealth creation. So
lets buy another SUV, create more wealth, and die in comfort.

So... you'd rather die in poverty and misery?

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

Hardly the proper behavior of a
sustainable space faring civilization.

Granted, nuclear power would be better. A few thousand terawatts of installed nuclear reactors, hooked up to
thermal depolymerization plants to turn grbage, sewage and other organic waste into octane would be preferable.
We'd be able to run our cars and airplanes jsut the same without modification, but we wouldn;t have to deal with
sandy ******** nations, and we could finally be done with all the CO2 nonsense, as it woudl now be a closed loop.

Scott Lowther wrote:

No qualification or limitation on the right to
craete wealth?

Why shoudl there be?

I'd try to limit the method that Al Capone or Enron execs made their
money. And, if there are major deleterious consequences from the
activities of Shell, Exxon et al, I'd try to limit them too. Note the
if. Let's leave that aside for a moment. Do you think there should
ever be laws restricting the profit making activities of companies and
individuals?

If your answer is no, we can never agree and I leave you to your
jungle.

If your answer is yes then we can have a discussion about the whys and
wherefores of global warming.

I suspect that the impoverishment or even forseeable
risk of extinction of life on the planet might be a reasonable
consideration.

It would be if it *were* reasonable, but it's not.

Unreasonable because remedies might mean the restriction of capitalism
and market forces - or unreasonable because CO2 is a colourless
odourless gas of no consequence?

Even the Kyoto antis seem to believe that the wealth created is
insufficient to remedy the problems caused by this wealth creation. So
lets buy another SUV, create more wealth, and die in comfort.

So... you'd rather die in poverty and misery?

Wow - that's quite a leap. One less SUV on my drive does not render me
miserable or poor. Ah but less SUV makers you say, that's poverty for
them and that means poverty for me. Well I think of all those millions
of flint arrowhead makers rendered poor and miserable by the invention
of bronze - or more recently the complete demise of the British coal
industry. Are those guys still unemployed - are there communities
derelict? Actually not particularly. It wasn't easy but they've turned
it round. SUV making skills may translate quite well into windmill and
tidal power machines.

A lot of the "don't interfere with markets" people I speak to tend to
be against change. Remarkable how resistant to changes in the rules
are those that grabbed opportunities that arose from such changes.
Remarkable how many of them belong to political parties that have the
word "conservative" in their platform.

(Thomas Lee Elifritz) wrote:

Earth, the Easter Island Planet.

I vowed not to use the word scary any more - but that is a chilling
one-liner I've never heard before.

Alain Fournier wrote:

Scott Lowther wrote:

Martin Frey wrote:

SUV making skills may translate quite well into windmill and
tidal power machines.


Thus leading to a lower-energy society, incapable of supporting humanity at
its current standfard of living. Consequence: death and poverty.

Windmills and tidal power machines aren't necessarily low energy
devices.

Love to see you power a car with a windmill...

It is quite possible to increase the total energy production
of a society and still lower its CO2 production.

Sure. Start cranking out nuclear reactors. We should have been doing that all
along.


A lower energy society doesn't need to have a lower standard of
living then a higher energy society. If you put better insulation
on a house you can lower your energy bill, does that lower your
standard of living?

It limits your options if the means to increase energy availability is to merely
increase efficiency.

Many devices that control greenhouse gases have pleasant side
effects.

Indeed. Nuclear reactors give hippies fits. Most entertaining.


Cattle and pigs produce large amounts of methane. It used
to be that that methane just went into the atmosphere. In Canada
because of the Kyoto protocol, farmers had incentives to capture
that methane.

Too bad Canada isn;t meeting their Kyoto obligations. As memory serves, the US is
doign better, and we didn;t even sign that travesty.


There are many more examples like that. Reducing greenhouse gases
isn't about killing the economy at all.

But the Kyoto treaty *is*.

Scott Lowther wrote:

Martin Frey wrote:

SUV making skills may translate quite well into windmill and
tidal power machines.


Thus leading to a lower-energy society, incapable of supporting humanity at
its current standfard of living. Consequence: death and poverty.

Windmills and tidal power machines aren't necessarily low energy
devices. It is quite possible to increase the total energy production
of a society and still lower its CO2 production.

A lower energy society doesn't need to have a lower standard of
living then a higher energy society. If you put better insulation
on a house you can lower your energy bill, does that lower your
standard of living? If you put regenerative brakes on your car
(or SUV) you can save on petrol consumption, does that lower your
standard of living?

Many devices that control greenhouse gases have pleasant side
effects. Cattle and pigs produce large amounts of methane. It used
to be that that methane just went into the atmosphere. In Canada
because of the Kyoto protocol, farmers had incentives to capture
that methane. The neighbors of those farms appreciate the better
smell, the farmers are happy to have methane generators provide
them electricity. Now farmers want to have those methane collectors
regardless of Kyoto or the greenhouse.

Of course those methane generators do spurt out some CO2 but that is
much less of a problem then methane. But the CO2 can also be put to
a better use. It isn't done on farms (not yet) but some larger
producers of CO2 capture that CO2 and give it to oil producers. Oil
producers used to pump water into their well to help extract oil.
It turns out that it is much more efficient to pump CO2 instead of
water. You can recover more oil from the same well by using CO2
instead of water.

There are many more examples like that. Reducing greenhouse gases
isn't about killing the economy at all.

Alain Fournier