Jump to content



Featured Articles

Check out the latest featured articles.

File Library

Check out the latest downloads available in the File Library.

New Article

Product Viscosity vs. Shear

Featured File

Vertical Tank Selection

New Blog Entry

Low Flow in Pipes- posted in Ankur's blog

Global Warming: Fact Or Fiction


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
48 replies to this topic
Share this topic:
| More

#1 Chris Haslego

Chris Haslego

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 191 posts

Posted 09 March 2003 - 01:18 PM

Join the discussion below:

#2 Guest_Doug Jackson_*

Guest_Doug Jackson_*
  • guestGuests

Posted 30 May 2003 - 03:48 PM

I'd like to offer a general comment regarding the widely publicized concerns over "global warming".

1) I accept that there is sufficient knowledge of the laws of physics & chemistry to determine that elevated concentrations of CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" will result in the earth's absorbing more energy than would be the case otherwise. This I consider to be irrefutable, and to be based on "good science".
2) I believe the consequences of item #1 are almost completely unknown. They do merit further investigation, but not drastic action, at this time.
3) Not withstanding item #2, I believe that there are a number of potentially very good consequences to the presence of added CO2 in the atmosphere. Enhanced plant growth and milder winters (=lower energy consumption??) quickly come to mind.
4) Also not withstanding item #2, I accept that there is concern regarding drastic changes as a potential consequence. My opinion is that it is premature to state that the result would be sea level rise. I think a drop in sea levels is an equally likely outcome due to increased humidity & snowfall over Antartica.
5) Superimpose this over the underlying long term climatic trend which is ??? and what have you got? Is it good or bad? If you can't answer these questions, don't favor spending $$$ at tremendous cost in human well being for possibly nothing.

#3 Guest_Ranjani Bhaskar_*

Guest_Ranjani Bhaskar_*
  • guestGuests

Posted 08 December 2004 - 06:16 AM

The Kyoto protocol has now been ratifed and will come in to force on 16th Feb 2005 as Russia has singned the portocol. Kindly visit www.unfccc.org for the latest details.

#4 djack77494

djack77494

    Gold Member

  • ChE Plus Subscriber
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 08 April 2005 - 09:51 AM

In just under two years, and given what we're led to believe is the near worldwide support to control "this problem", is there noone willing to challenge my posting?
Doug.

#5 Nick (6 Engineering Ltd)

Nick (6 Engineering Ltd)

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 24 posts

Posted 21 April 2005 - 02:51 AM

Doug,
I have to say- I agree with you. Far too much scaremongering going on- by the UK government especially.
Maybe if we all held our breath for a minute or so then the CO2 level would decline low enough...

The thing you find round here is that everybody jumps on the windfarm bandwagon. No-one seems to want to mention that to make them you need steel and to set them in the ground you need concrete... I'm sure there's CO2 produced to get both of these.
Then you need to consider the fact that they only turn in certain wind conditions- too slow or too fast and they don't turn. That must mean that we have to burn more fossil fuel anyway to get the power we need. Maybe there's just too much hot air coming out of certain politicians- surely a significant contribution to global warming, wouldn't you agree?
Nick

#6 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • guestGuests

Posted 22 April 2005 - 07:38 AM

There are two related issues that I think Kyoto is trying to address. The first is
global warming. The number I've heard is that average temperatures in the
last 100 years have risen 1.8 degrees (not sure if that's C or F). That may not
sound significant, but it does demonstrate that humans have the ability to
change the climate in a relatively short time (this rise has not been measured
before in one century). If China and India develop into nations where everyone
drives cars and lives in air-conditioned houses, then the change could occur much
more quickly. There are some possible consequences of this that should concern
you. The first is the ocean currents could stop, causing a large upset in the
already overfished aquarian populations. I think we have only had these currents
for the last 15,000 years, and they occur only in a narrow temperature band. The
second consequence is a potential change in the rainfall patterns globally. The
desert in Saudi Arabia, for example, used to be green a few thousand years ago,
but now most of the desert areas are limited to 3" of rain per year. (I just got
12" of rain in one day a few weeks ago.) What would happen if a large agricultural
producing nation like the U.S. were to turn into a desert over a twenty-year span, and
a desert nation like Saudi Arabia were to turn green again? You would have 300 MM
people with guns demanding food and trying to relocate to other countries, and
countries with newly found agriculture-capabilities trying to close down their borders
and figure out how to grow crops. These things may not happen--but the point is that
1.8+ degrees per century is outside the normal experience of the planet, and they
could happen.

The second issue that Kyoto is concerned with is the limited supply of fossil fuels.
Oil and gas will run out eventually, and there is no practical replacement at this
time. Parts of Texas were covered with oil derricks at one time, and now they're
virtually tapped out. The U.S., with 5% of the world's population, uses 30% of the
world's energy, and sets the standard for maximum energy consumption. If China
adopts this standard as it becomes more affluent, then there will be problems.
Rising oil prices occur when demand exceeds supply, and at some point, wars may
break out for access to oil. It is easy to forget this issue when the gas at the pump
never runs out, or when gas is cheaper than bottled water (which it is in the U.S.),
but it is still there. Nuclear energy has gotten more safe in the last 25 years, and
could take up some of the burden, and there are promising alternatives on the
horizon. But again, if China starts driving cars at the same rate that western nations
do, the future may get here faster than we are ready for it.

I don't think that these problems require any strong immediate action, other than
a general push for more fuel-efficient vehicles, better insulated houses, etc. But that
doesn't mean that it would be wise to ignore the problem, either. By the time you
see that the climate has changed, it will be too late to do much of anything. The
magazine National Geographic (which is known for being fairly independent) has had
some interesting articles in the last year on oil production and usage.

#7 Nick (6 Engineering Ltd)

Nick (6 Engineering Ltd)

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 24 posts

Posted 24 April 2005 - 07:47 PM

Dear Sir/Madam,
Maybe you took my comments to mean that I think that global warming is not a serious issue- I thjink that it is. What I object to is the politicising of the issue in order to sway voters. However, politicians are what they are and will always do the same.
It may be in the US that fuel gas is cheaper than bottled water, but here in the UK it is quite expensive- 85 pence per litre this morning as I drove to work. One other thing to consider is that cars over here tend to have smaller engines than in the US. There are increasingly more cars with engines around the size of 1.0 to 1.3 litres which are quite efficient. Mine is a 1.6 but my job requires that I travel a lot and there are some big hills where I live!
This is a highly political issue and will always provoke arguments but my opinion is that if we try and think like engineers in our home lives and squeeze that extra bit of efficiency and less wastage out of what we do then that's a step in the right direction.

Regards,

Nick

#8 djack77494

djack77494

    Gold Member

  • ChE Plus Subscriber
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 26 April 2005 - 01:31 PM

At the risk of making this forum way too political, I'd like to suggest that there are two simple, effective, and straightforward solutions to a great number of the world's problems. This includes "global warming" which I do not want to imply is not a real concern. Unfortunately, both of these solutions seem to be "totally off the table". People unable to say anything that someone somewhere will not find offensive (i.e. politicians and the politically correct) seem unable to even discuss either of these solutions. I'll leave you guessing as to what the two solutions are, but promise to revisit this forum before long to reveal them. (Being bright chemical engineers, I'm sure most of you already know the answers.)
Doug

#9 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • guestGuests

Posted 29 April 2005 - 04:07 AM

It's a shame that the British politicians are politicizing this issue, as there isn't a
whole lot that Great Britain can do to solve the problem, other than lead by
example. The problem really is driven by the U.S. and (increasingly) by China
and other growing third world nations. The fact that China expects to be a
superpower in the near future will only make things worse. There is very little
that western countries can do to impact the behavior of the Chinese (unless
we stop buying their cheap products).

U.S. politicians are very reluctant to even make a token step towards reducing
fossil fuels consumption. All President Bush would have to do is sign an executive
order mandating that federal government cars (obviously, not emergency vehicles)
get 40 mpg. All new cars purchased under gov't contract would have to meet this
standard (and there are many models that do get 40 mpg). In short order, Ford,
GM, and Chrysler would start producing energy-efficient cars in large numbers,
and the price for these cars would go down, causing more people to buy them.

Another gov't program (which politicians are terrified to approach) would be to
tie highway maintenance to gas taxes, and not income tax. Right now, there is
little financial incentive for even the poorest of people to buy a fuel-efficient car.
I pay 1% of my salary to the gas pump, while my wife (as a teacher) pays 3%.
The car payment can be 5-10 times the cost of fuel every month. Most people
who buy hybrid cars or 1.6L engine cars are considered environmental wackos
here. The standard is somewhere between 2.4L and 3.8L, and the trend is
toward 4.7L 8-cylinder engines. People get a tax credit for buying a Hummer
(civilian version of a Humvee) for business purposes, up to $100,000, so you
see a lot of those on the road.

While you may be irritated by the over-politicizing of the global warming issue in
the U.K., I'm concerned by the under-politicizing of the issue in the U.S. And I'm
really not an "environmental extremist" by any definition. It just isn't responsible
for a nation that has 5% of the world's population to use 30% of the world's oil,
especially if it has the technological resources to do better.

#10 djack77494

djack77494

    Gold Member

  • ChE Plus Subscriber
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 29 April 2005 - 11:43 AM

The US is supposedly in favor of free market economics, as are quite a few other countries (at least in theory). Instead of mandates, how about we just put a substantial tax on every barrel of oil and cubic foot or meter of gas. Then let the market decide. Maybe some people will opt for those 1.6L engine cars. It is a frequently used tool, almost a policy, of the US government to use tax policy to effect social change; use it here to good advantage. I have not challenged Guest's statement that the tax would not be overly regressive because I believe he is right.
Doug

#11 Nick (6 Engineering Ltd)

Nick (6 Engineering Ltd)

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 24 posts

Posted 02 May 2005 - 11:41 PM

This is turning into quite an interesting discussion. I take into account Guest's views on taxing but that's the problem over here in the UK. The amount of tax on fuel is completely out of line with what you'd normally expect. Currently, we pay 17.5% Value Added Tax (they do come up with some nice names, don't they!) on practically everything we buy. Except fuel.
Last year this led to some nasty blockades at refineries and fuel stations ran dry. There are threats to do this again.
We also pay road tax. For me, this is around £180/year- it's not due for another couple of months so there's a good chance it may be more by then.
If I had a car with a small (1.4L and under) then I'd pay less road tax- but not much less.
Maybe a better rail network would help- there are so many wagons on the road now that it's nearly impossible to get anywhere at a decent speed.
Let's ask Mr Bush if he'll sign that mandate... and maybe China will follow suit. Doubt it though.

I could sell my car and make no contribution to global warming but I don't think it would be a practical solution.

Should we all turn into environmental whackos and set a trend by driving a smaller-engined car?

One large contribution to global warming is the power industry. We all use electricity, but how much of it is produced by an old plant, not as efficient as it could be and pumps out Carbon Dioxide as if it's the best thing since sliced bread?

I know of three power stations in England alone that are around 30 years old and are coal fired. We should look at alternate energy sources, but over here Nuclear is not a popular option and the politicians are steering well clear unless they're forced into answering.

#12 djack77494

djack77494

    Gold Member

  • ChE Plus Subscriber
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 07 May 2005 - 01:37 PM

Trying to control the world's environmental problems by giving up our cars and other energy consuming conveniences is a bit like trying to control population through abstinence.

#13 Nick (6 Engineering Ltd)

Nick (6 Engineering Ltd)

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 24 posts

Posted 09 May 2005 - 01:47 AM

Obviously giving up our cars is not a plausible option, neither is abstinence!
But consider the following:
1) Driving a car with a 1.6L engine to work does the same job as a driving a 3.5L engined car. You get to go up hills faster, but it pollutes more. Do you really need such a big car?
2) If everyone takes the attitude of "what difference can one person make?" then no-one makes a difference.

So, maybe we should start another topic on this forum- what are we as Engineers going to do for our bit to combat global warming?
I'm going to switch more lights off when I don't need them on. Drive a little slower and get more mpg from my car. Recycle more.
What is everyone else going to do?
I challenge you. Put your money where your mouth is and make a difference!

#14 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • guestGuests

Posted 25 May 2005 - 09:56 AM

The problem with the idea of engineers driving small cars and "leading the way"
to persuade everyone else to drive small cars is that it runs contrary to popular
culture (at least in the U.S.). Status and prestige are conferred upon those who
drive the biggest (and most expensive) cars and trucks. We even have a class
of politician known as a "limousine liberal", who flies his private jet to a political
rally, tells you that you need to do more to conserve fossil fuel, and then drives
off in his limousine.

Another factor leading to more wasteful cars in the U.S.: lower savings rates,
and easier access to loans (home equity loans, etc.). There is a competitive
attitude among people for having the biggest, the best, etc. and it shows up
in two possessions: the size of your car, and the size of your house (which has
also been increasing in size since the 1980's). More house also means more
air conditioning and heating.

There's nothing wrong with engineers doing their part, but believing that it will
lead to any kind of solution or noticeable improvement in the supply-vs-demand
curve for oil is not clear thinking.

The current U.S. administration had a blank check to impose social changes of
huge magnitude after 9-11, and what did we get? Color-coded security status
flags, and the Dept. of Homeland Security (who is in charge of deciding what color
the flag should be each day).

#15 djack77494

djack77494

    Gold Member

  • ChE Plus Subscriber
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 04 June 2005 - 02:39 PM

This bulletin board seems to have generated a lot of "Mom and Apple Pie" type of thoughts about conserving energy, but there is a scarcity of concrete, practical ideas. Maybe that's why there are so few effective implementations of solutions to these problems. In any case, you can neither shame nor show by example more than a very small percentage of the population why and how to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. People just don't care enough about a seemingly miniscual global temperature rise that might cause a few centimeter sea rise affecting someone half a world away. [I'm cold more often than I'm hot anyway. ;-)] Even if it will affect your area sometime over the next few hundred years, don't we have more important things to worry about? Let's get real and admit that there are very few people who will endure significant hardships to avoid this type of consequence. Especially when the true nature and magnitude of that consequence is pretty darn uncertain. I suggest that we should mount a serious global effort to define the problem and its effects - develop an adequate model that accurately reflects the past; i.e. the global climatic history. If we can't develop a model that reflects what we know of the past, then we cannot convince skeptics (like myself) that we "know" what the future will bring. I'd suggest that this model should go back at least as far as the "Little Ice Age" experienced within the past 500 years.

My final comments on this matter (and many other global problems) are that the real solutions are never put on the table because they are "politically incorrect". I'm speaking of 1) Population control, especially in the underdeveloped world, and 2) Safe, reliable nuclear energy as a "bridge" technology until such time as we can develop feasible renewable energy sources. (We largely don't have them today.)

For what it's worth,
Doug

#16 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • guestGuests

Posted 07 June 2005 - 03:24 PM

Population control in the developing world is a very difficult matter to make any real
progress in, because you are dealing with cultures and identities. In Indonesia, for
example, it is considered "lucky" to have exactly nine children, so that is what people
aim for. In the middle east, large families are also common. I know a guy who had
to marry his brother's wife when his brother died (a common practice). He adopted
her two kids, had six more with her, and now he has decided to marry a "real wife"
(multiple wives are also part of the culture) and it would be an insult to his new wife
to not have children with her. (I think King Saud had 46 children with 23 wives in
Saudi Arabia.)

The other issue with population control is that the planet already supports 6+ billion
people, so it's a little late to solve the energy problem by controlling population.

You can never underestimate the issue of culture in dealing with a problem. Bill Gates
is having trouble giving $100MM away to India to fight AIDs, because India has a hard
time admitting they have a problem. It may be horrifying to us that India would sacrifice
thousands of their own people over what looks like their foolish pride, but their cultural
identity is at stake (in their minds, anyway).


Solutions:

The first thing that should be done is to stop force-feeding development to the
developing world. The International Monetary Fund has done more damage with
loans to develop industry in countries like South Korea than you can imagine. The
goal was to improve the standards of the people there, and it worked too well. Now
most Koreans drive cars, live in modern housing, etc. It's good for them, but bad for
the environment. If you ask a person in Taiwan what the word "Taiwan" means,
since "Formosa" was Spanish for beautiful island, they will tell you it stands for "dirty
island" (it really means "terraced bay"). These countries got too much industrialization
before they were ready for it.

Solution #1: Stop the IMF from loaning money on industrial projects.

As I mentioned before, it would be wise to require government vehicles to get 40 mpg
when practical. One of the functions of government is to lead, even though in a free
society the people are free to follow or not follow. I'm sure that governments by tens
of thousands of new cars a year, if not hundreds of thousands. This will lead auto-
makers to produce a greater variety of vehicles, some of which would become popular
with the public at large.

Solution #2: 40 mpg gov't vehicles.

Higher gas taxes would also be an improvement. In fact, the gas taxes could have a
variable component to reduce the large fluctuation in prices. If the gov't collected half
the difference between the price of oil per barrel and some target ($50 or $60 per
barrel, for example), then that would help stabilize the cost of gas. The variability
seems to cause as much or more hardship as the actual cost, because trucking
companies have to set contracts based on their estimate of diesel prices. The only
problem with variable gas taxes would be the issue of kickbacks (companies would try
to skirt the need to pay extra taxes by setting up a complex purchase arrangement
for the oil).

Solution #3: higher gas taxes.

I agree with your suggestion on nuclear energy. But I am very concerned about
countries like Iran and North Korea having nuclear technology, even if its primarily
for electricity generation. I am not thrilled with the idea of Pakistan and India having
nuclear weapons, and do not want another half dozen countries getting them.

Solution #4: nuclear energy.

#17 djack77494

djack77494

    Gold Member

  • ChE Plus Subscriber
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 10 June 2005 - 05:54 PM

Guest,
As a technical person, you readily accepted the nuclear power suggestion, but equally easily admitted (essentially) that the population control issue was beyond solution. What's a pity is that we will have population control one way or another. Ideally, we can plan and control our own population. If that is not a true statement, and I concur that it probably is not, then nature will control our population. That will not be pretty and is a much inferior way of this happening. Maybe we should redefine our lucky numbers to be two. ;-)

#18 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • guestGuests

Posted 05 January 2006 - 03:50 PM

Here some scary information: according to an article in National Geographic,
global warming has started to slow down the Atlantic circulation current. It's
very bad news for people who live in Europe, who should expect cooler summers
and colder winters. I can't help but wonder about the connection to recent
news of roofs collapsing in Germany under the weight of excess snow...

#19 djack77494

djack77494

    Gold Member

  • ChE Plus Subscriber
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 08 April 2007 - 07:18 PM

I think I get it now. If it gets hotter in Europe, that's a sure sign of global warming. Also, if it gets cooler in Europe, that's a sure sign of global warming because of a slowing down of oceanic currents. Now, where's the (workable) model. We're ready to spend billions trying to solve this catastrophic problem we're facing. Why not insist that the effort start with a good model that, as I said earlier, can adequately describe climate back to the beginning of the "Little Ice Age". Then we'll really have something.

#20 mbeychok

mbeychok

    Gold Member

  • ChE Plus Subscriber
  • 364 posts

Posted 20 November 2007 - 09:40 PM

I do not intend to participate in a lengthy debate beyond posting this message. For those who are concerned about "carbon footprints" and "global warming", I would remind you that humans and all other mammals breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide ... whereas trees and other vegetation breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen. Lest we get carried away with getting rid of all carbon dioxide emissions, remember we depend upon the oxygen created by trees that need carbon dioxide to produce the oxygen we breathe.

As for global warming, would it help you to know that Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Science (USA), thinks that global warming theory is based on flawed ideas? See http://www.oism.org/...ject/s33p41.htm. In fact, he has sponsored a petition to have the United States government reject the Kyoto Protocal ... and the petition now has 19,000 signatures.

Would it also help you to know that Richard Lindzen, the Alfred Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachussetts Institute of Technology (MIT), is one of the most outspoken skeptics of the global warming theory?

If you need further confirmation that the global warming theory is flawed, read this article:

A.B. Robinson, N.E. Robinson and Willie Soon, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide", Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (2007) 12, 78-90. A copy is available online at http://www.oism.org/...iew_OISM300.pdf

I know it is often easier to express one's opinion than it is to read some facts. I would urge all of you to read and study the above article.

#21 DougB

DougB

    Brand New Member

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 12:52 PM

Global warming IS occurring; however, it is likely not caused by human carbon emissions. Consider, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in June 1991. It is said to have emitted more carbon, particulates, and gaseous emissions into the atmosphere in one eruption than man had ever emitted since man began to use fire. Also, NASA data indicates that the average temperature on Mars is ALSO increasing and correlating with the increases found on Earth. Last I looked, there are no SUVs on Mars.....yet.

The actual cause of Global Warming is likely solar caused. It is a well known fact the the sun evolves over time, sometimes flaring and sometimes not. Much like a volcano, it is not predictable and does not follow a specific cycle. Currently, the sun is flaring, out gassing, erupting...call it what you want, it is providing much more radiation.....HEAT.

My personal thoughts:

"Man will be the cause of it's own demise" - Doug Bouldin 1988

That cause will more likely be sudden event (a few decades) like a bio, medical, or military event, rather than a long drawn out event (centuries) emanating from an environmental fluctuation. The cause may even be from a fix to a supposed environmental "issue" that ends up destroying us quicker. An example of such a blunder is trying to create an artificial reef off the coast of Florida using millions of waste tires. The pile has not grown a reef and has actually been proven to have caused the destruction of all of the nearby natural reefs.

I find it rather funny that humans think they can control a process well beyond their control. That's THE inconvenient truth!!

Where common sense is not lost....the laws of Nature will prevail. In other words, let's NOT engineer ourselves into extinction. unsure.gif

#22 gvdlans

gvdlans

    Gold Member

  • ChE Plus Subscriber
  • 619 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 02:08 PM

QUOTE (DougB @ Dec 12 2007, 06:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Consider, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in June 1991. It is said to have emitted more carbon, particulates, and gaseous emissions into the atmosphere in one eruption than man had ever emitted since man began to use fire. Also, NASA data indicates that the average temperature on Mars is ALSO increasing and correlating with the increases found on Earth. Last I looked, there are no SUVs on Mars.....yet.

Could you give a reference/source for these statements?

#23 DougB

DougB

    Brand New Member

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 14 December 2007 - 08:44 AM

QUOTE (gvdlans @ Dec 12 2007, 12:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (DougB @ Dec 12 2007, 06:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Consider, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in June 1991. It is said to have emitted more carbon, particulates, and gaseous emissions into the atmosphere in one eruption than man had ever emitted since man began to use fire. Also, NASA data indicates that the average temperature on Mars is ALSO increasing and correlating with the increases found on Earth. Last I looked, there are no SUVs on Mars.....yet.

Could you give a reference/source for these statements?


http://www.scienceda...71211101623.htm
http://powerlineblog...ives/011741.php
http://today.reuters...-SPACE-MARS.xml
http://en.wikipedia..../Mount_Pinatubo
http://www.sciencema...y/295/5558/1242
http://pubs.usgs.gov...2/of97-262.html
http://www.amazon.co...l/dp/3540612815
http://www.scienceda...30313081900.htm
http://www.geotimes....02/geophen.html

I found it quite funny that Reuters removed their article. It must not have made their investors happy.
also, google "Mount Pinatubo & emissions" there are 77 pages of references.

Currently Global Warming is nothing more than a political football. Its all about money and power....pure EVIL!! Imagine, every active volcano (those actively venting) emit on average (see links above for evidence) 5,000 TONS PER DAY of SO2. We should definitely outlaw volcano's!

There are only three things in the universe that can impact our world enough to affect a noticable change....the universe itself, the sun, and the Earth. We pale in any comparison.

#24 gvdlans

gvdlans

    Gold Member

  • ChE Plus Subscriber
  • 619 posts

Posted 14 December 2007 - 10:54 AM

DougB,

That's a lot of interesting links! Thank you for that.

I scanned through those links, but failed to find the statements you made in your previous post

"[Mount Pinatubo] emitted more carbon, particulates, and gaseous emissions into the atmosphere in one eruption than man had ever emitted since man began to use fire."

and

"NASA data indicates that the average temperature on Mars is ALSO increasing and correlating with the increases found on Earth"

Did I miss something?

#25 DougB

DougB

    Brand New Member

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 14 December 2007 - 03:13 PM

QUOTE (gvdlans @ Dec 14 2007, 08:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
DougB,

That's a lot of interesting links! Thank you for that.

I scanned through those links, but failed to find the statements you made in your previous post

"[Mount Pinatubo] emitted more carbon, particulates, and gaseous emissions into the atmosphere in one eruption than man had ever emitted since man began to use fire."

and

"NASA data indicates that the average temperature on Mars is ALSO increasing and correlating with the increases found on Earth"

Did I miss something?


Yeah....The Reuters article is the one that summarized the NASA data. Convenient that is is no longer available.....or maybe it was an "Inconvenient Truth" that dispels a Nobel Peace Prize. I will try and find it pasted into a blog......but then we would lose it's credibility as a reference.

As for the comment "more than man", that came from a professor of mine in the 90's who is/was (he may have passed on) an emissions expert and who had all the data available to him. At the time he was conducting a mass balance of air pollution for our area so that they could come up with a model. Anyways, at the time, he summarized his data with numbers from the volcano versus the generally accepted numbers for the world's totals. I wish it was published.....sorry if you feel cheated.

The problem with many links and such is they are summarizing "stuff" they read and researched. For every link I put here, someone can put a link to an article saying exactly the opposite. Likewise, 100 scientist can stand up and say its all man made, another will stand up and say no. I guess it depends on what side of the fence you stand on. In my opinion, it just depends on where the money is coming from.

With that said, here is an interesting read:

http://mysite.verizo...house_data.html

What? Water vapor? So are we going to be required to cover up our lakes? QUICK!! SELL THE BOAT!!




Similar Topics