Global Warming Hysteria
#31
Here's a link to a good thread I would like everyone to scroll through. You don't even have to read it, just skim through.
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/sh...ad.php?t=11187
I happen to live here. Sorry for those of you who live in the middle of nowhere who have no respect for the environment/outdoors. I really wished you lived somewhere like California. Maybe you'd understand.
Ya, that is smog. Mostly from cars. Even if you refuse to believe global warming, you have to know that humans are hurting the environment. I could post millions of these types of pictures, but I simply don't have the time.
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/sh...ad.php?t=11187
I happen to live here. Sorry for those of you who live in the middle of nowhere who have no respect for the environment/outdoors. I really wished you lived somewhere like California. Maybe you'd understand.
Ya, that is smog. Mostly from cars. Even if you refuse to believe global warming, you have to know that humans are hurting the environment. I could post millions of these types of pictures, but I simply don't have the time.
I posted the pictures in the thread you reference and I live in California and I love the outdoors and respect the environment. None of those things have anything to do with global warming, so again...what is your point?
The picture of smog was probably taken on a bad day in LA. If you were around in the 70's you would have seen far worse smog in LA pretty much every day. It is much better today. I have seen pictures of the LA basin in the 20's and there was smog/haze in those too. The majority of what you see is haze from water vapor. In the LA basin the winds blow everything up against the mountains and all the smog and haze just hangs out because it has nowhere to go. Again, this isn't global warming, it's primarily orographic weather.
What research have you done on this issue other than watch an extremely biased and inaccurate movie produced by a politician? Before you presume to preach to others, do some study and research both sides of this debate. I consider myself a scientist and have read many research papers(not just blogs, movies, or other biased sources) and I remain unconvinced by the arguments of the global warming alarmists. I do not dismiss the theory completely, but I do not think the theory/research is conclusive enough to take the kind of drastic action that is being considered and advocated by you and many politicians.
I you want to make a credible argument to this forum, do it on the basis of real science. There are good arguments on both sides of the debate, but you haven't made any good arguments for your point of view yet.
U2DRVR
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 408
True...the smog situation in Southern California has improved dramatically since the mid-70s. While there are still bad days, that picture (which was taken before the 1987-1990 construction of the US Bank Tower) is not remotely representative of the average day.
#33
I you want to make a credible argument to this forum, do it on the basis of real science.
Are humans harming our environment? Are we hurting the earth? Do cars producing carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, smog, etc.. hurt the environment. Is the air you breath dirtier than before the industrial revolution? Ask the athletes going to compete in Beijing in 2008 what they think of the pollution in that city. If the answer to any of the above was yes, we ought to try and do something to stop it.
You are right. I have not read MANY research papers on global warming because I don't have the time. I have a full time engineering job and I flight instruct another 25 hours a week. But there is something I know a little about. Renewable energy. When I graduated, I was offered a job at NREL (National Renewable Energy Lab). If I didn't have such a passion for flying, I would have taken this job. I'd be doing more good for the planet than trying to explain to the close minded people on this board that we are hurting our one and only planet.
Over 25% of their multi-million dollar budget goes to research in solar cells. Much more than anything else. More than ethanol, more than nuclear, more than antimater, more than hydrogen fuel cells, more than anything!! Why solar cells? Because they are a "relatively proven technology with a known potential". There are several reasons why solar power is not in widespread use. For one, efficiency is currently abismal. I think it is somewhere in the 15% range, with the majority of cheaper solar cells around 8%. They are fairly expensive to produce because we are having a worldwide silicon shortage. But NREL knows solar power has a "known potential." They just need the money to research it, and they will get it eventually.
That is my biggest goal coming on here and talking up the environment. We have the technology. It is within range. I would really like to see money invested in renewable energy. In California, more than 30% of our power comes from renewable resources (wind, hydro, solar), and another 20% from nuclear. Compare that to Texas where 90% of their power comes from coal and natural gas. A little advancement in battery technology, and we could have 100% electric cars.
Originally Posted by jungle
Trading in all of our cars for electric cars would require an massive increase in production of batteries. The manufacturing and disposal of these batteries would produce huge amounts of toxic waste that may well do more harm to the environment.
Jungle seems to think we should not change anything unless there are no economic drawbacks. Question for you. What has rising oil prices done to the US economy? What did it do to us in the 70's? What is it doing to the airline industry??
Now imagine we could be free from those price fluxuations everytime some middle east leader decideds they want to screw with us. We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, in addition to fossil fuels in general. How are we going to do that??
We need to invest the money. Renewable energy. Wind, hydro, solar. We need to improve batteries. We could have renewable energy that doesn't pollute our planet. We could stop sending HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars to the Middle East. We could stop oil price fluxuations which kill our economy. We could have a form of energy that would not run out (like a fossil fuel) and would be a lot more stable price wise than oil. Global warming is only part of the argument why we need to do this.
#34
First off, you attribute a quote made by u2drvr to me. Secondly you have assumed(notice that word coming up frequently) that this country and others are not working toward the goals you mentioned. This is incorrect, and a little study would show that tremendous advances have been made toward energy economy and reduction in pollution.
You want more and that is fine, but we can't wish it into being, legislate technology or snap our fingers and make all the bad things go away.
I am happy to see you saying something besides "watch the movie".
You are an engineer. Can you run us a quick cost study on the size and cost of solar arrays to equal the energy of about 7 billion barrels of oil a year plus the cost of any infrastructure changes? Can you compare the cost and efficiency to a similar size nuclear program? Can you project the impact on the average citizen?
You want more and that is fine, but we can't wish it into being, legislate technology or snap our fingers and make all the bad things go away.
I am happy to see you saying something besides "watch the movie".
You are an engineer. Can you run us a quick cost study on the size and cost of solar arrays to equal the energy of about 7 billion barrels of oil a year plus the cost of any infrastructure changes? Can you compare the cost and efficiency to a similar size nuclear program? Can you project the impact on the average citizen?
Last edited by jungle; 05-09-2007 at 07:32 AM.
#35
u2drvr, Excellent post, it is nice to hear the voice of well reasoned discussion. I would only add that water vapor represents about 95% of greenhouse gases.
What are the facts? Again and again and again what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history" what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
Heinlein
Political tags such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.
Heinlein
What are the facts? Again and again and again what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history" what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
Heinlein
Political tags such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.
Heinlein
Thanks for putting it down here.
#36
California did it. Over 30% of our power comes from renewable resources. Wind, hydro, solar. That is LEGISLATED. And it is legislated to increase every year. Oil and coal are good sources of energy. They are somewhat abundant and the energy we get out of them is fairly high. That is why these have been used for the past hundred(s) of years. The laissez faire market supports these as fuel. But they are horrible for the environment. Maybe we do need to legislate it. Not that I would immediately jump on this bandwagon, but it has worked in California.
If our government just invested in more renewable energy, I would guarentee we could get it cheaper than oil and coal. But we need to start somewhere.
If our government just invested in more renewable energy, I would guarentee we could get it cheaper than oil and coal. But we need to start somewhere.
#37
California did it. Over 30% of our power comes from renewable resources. Wind, hydro, solar. That is LEGISLATED. And it is legislated to increase every year. Oil and coal are good sources of energy. They are somewhat abundant and the energy we get out of them is fairly high. That is why these have been used for the past hundred(s) of years. The laissez faire market supports these as fuel. But they are horrible for the environment. Maybe we do need to legislate it. Not that I would immediately jump on this bandwagon, but it has worked in California.
If our government just invested in more renewable energy, I would guarentee we could get it cheaper than oil and coal. But we need to start somewhere.
If our government just invested in more renewable energy, I would guarentee we could get it cheaper than oil and coal. But we need to start somewhere.
Yes, that legislation has been working very well for them. It is all Enrons fault.
Passing the buck and calling it green doesn't actually change the landscape.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califor...tricity_crisis
Do you remember what I said about a daily basis on the previous page?
Last edited by jungle; 05-09-2007 at 08:19 AM.
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
No doubt the lead acid battery is better for the environment. It only has to supply enough power to start the engine.
#40
On the topic of California, Schwarzenegger has made some very critical decisions about managing his state's emissions. Schwarzenegger has realized that trying to take away his citizens' hummers (and with them their lead acid batteries and poor mileage) would be a losing battle. Instead, the "Governator" has realized, and explicitly stated to many news agencies, that emissions reform must be "sexy." Schwarzenegger, IMHO, is making a very intelligent decision to appeal to one of the most common of human emotions. Schwarzenegger realizes that we are materialists and will not want to give up our hummers, yachts, etc. However, he does know that we would still purchase a hummer that runs on an alternate energy source, because we wouldn't be able to tell the difference (other than from the bolstered mileage). Schwarzenegger also knows that we won't care if two trees are planted for every one that is cut down. California is undergoing a very progressive period with Schwarzenegger as governor, and I hope that he serves as an impetus for a more sweeping era of reform across America. This planet will not go down the dumps because we have the ability to regulate our behavior, so don't give me that pessimism
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post