At least Kyoto uses an american idea: free trade of emissions rights. This is something we pushed before pulling out, to europeans who were skeptic and now buy into it. The US delegate is now trading emissions rights in the UK. Clean air becomes a commodity. Give people a profit incentive and they clean up their act. It's the best of the free market and a little direction from people with the future in mind. There is a notable omission in China--of course, the USA too, since we're #1 in about everything. But developing nations aren't being punished. It's kind of hard to go around saying, we benefitted from all this oil, but sorry, you can't, good luck staying poor! China is a mjor industrial force and is leading the US in consumption of just about everything; however, the US is far smaller, and so per capita consumption shows that only in pork use are they leading us. Not sure why we would pass judgement on a group of people based on total use and not per capita personally. But there are those interested in revising China's status, for sure.
One other thing to add: the idea that UV can't get into a "hole" unless the sun is above the pole doesn't wash with me. The atmosphere is pretty thin--relatively speaking. It's more like there being a sphere with less suntan lotion at the poles than there being an egg with holes at the poles that don't let sun onto the yolk unless light is positioned directly above them.
Great News
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
It should. Why is a sunset red, Ian?Ian wrote:One other thing to add: the idea that UV can't get into a "hole" unless the sun is above the pole doesn't wash with me.
The atmosphere acts as a bandpass filter. The nature of that filter depends to a large part on the angle which the light goes through it.
- Bill
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
Large devoloping countries such as China and India will soon pass the US in total pollution. One reason is their heavy reliance on coal and heavy distillate oils like #6. Also, the use of kerosene for cooking and heating is widespread and there are no emission restrictions on those one billion or so cook stoves and space heaters. It all adds up.
Also, especially in China, there is no OSHA worrying about employee health and safety. Last week saw a regular seasonal coal mine explosion in China that killed over 200 workers and spewed no telling how much CO2, VOCs and particulate matter into the air. Coal mines are particularly dangerous in the winter when the air is dry and the coal dust becomes very dangerous. Also, all the water dumped into the mine to douse the fire will ultimately find its way into the outside environment and it will be full of sulpher, heavy metals and other toxic substances.
Massive mine explosions were once common in the US but it is now rare to hear of massive fatalities in mines in the US.
China and India have so many people they really do not mechanize the way the US has. Those countries want to put people to work. The labor cost is so low there is no incentive to increase worker productivity.
Rich
Also, especially in China, there is no OSHA worrying about employee health and safety. Last week saw a regular seasonal coal mine explosion in China that killed over 200 workers and spewed no telling how much CO2, VOCs and particulate matter into the air. Coal mines are particularly dangerous in the winter when the air is dry and the coal dust becomes very dangerous. Also, all the water dumped into the mine to douse the fire will ultimately find its way into the outside environment and it will be full of sulpher, heavy metals and other toxic substances.
Massive mine explosions were once common in the US but it is now rare to hear of massive fatalities in mines in the US.
China and India have so many people they really do not mechanize the way the US has. Those countries want to put people to work. The labor cost is so low there is no incentive to increase worker productivity.
Rich
Member of the world's premier gun club, the USMC!
-
Guest
China passes U.S. as world's biggest consumer
(CBC) — China has surpassed the United States to lead the world in the consumption of basic food and industrial goods, a study says.
The booming Asian country now uses more meat, grain, steel and coal, according to an environmental think-tank's report released Wednesday.
The only basic commodity still consumed in greater quantities by Americans is oil, says the report from the Washington-based Earth Policy Institute.
The Chinese have even eclipsed Americans in consumer goods, buying more refrigerators, more televisions and cell phones.
"China is no longer just a developing country. It is an emerging economic superpower, one that is writing economic history," writes the institute's president, Lester Brown.
"If the last century was the American century, this one looks to be the Chinese century."
However, per capita consumption in the world's most populous country remains far below that of the United States.
According to the report:
- China's 1.3 billion people ate 64 million tonnes of meat in 2004, compared with 38 million tonnes consumed by the 297 million people in the United States.
- China used 382 million tonnes of grain in 2004, compared to 278 million tonnes in the United States.
- China's use of steel in 2003 soared to 258 million tonnes -- more than twice that of the United States -- as hundreds of thousands of factories, high-rise apartments and office buildings were constructed for rapidly growing urban populations.
- China burned 800 million tonnes of coal compared to 574 million tonnes in the United States, leading the Earth Policy Institute to warn "it is only a matter of time until China will also be the world's top emitter of carbon."
- Sales of almost all consumer products are skyrocketing in China, especially of electronics. In 2003, China had 269 million cell phones, for example, compared to 159 million in the United States.
- The Chinese still lag behind the Americans in their use of automobiles, however, with only one-tenth of the 226 million vehicles that clog U.S. roads.
The report says that China's "voracious appetite" for goods ranging from grain to iron ore to forest products has placed it "at the centre of the world raw materials economy," driving up commodity prices and ocean shipping rates.
Brown warns that the United States, which is the world's leading debtor nation, now depends heavily on Chinese capital to underwrite its fast-growing debt.
"If China ever decides to divert this capital surplus elsewhere, either to internal investment or to the development of oil, gas, and mineral resources elsewhere in the world, the U.S. economy will be in trouble."
© the CBC, 2005
(CBC) — China has surpassed the United States to lead the world in the consumption of basic food and industrial goods, a study says.
The booming Asian country now uses more meat, grain, steel and coal, according to an environmental think-tank's report released Wednesday.
The only basic commodity still consumed in greater quantities by Americans is oil, says the report from the Washington-based Earth Policy Institute.
The Chinese have even eclipsed Americans in consumer goods, buying more refrigerators, more televisions and cell phones.
"China is no longer just a developing country. It is an emerging economic superpower, one that is writing economic history," writes the institute's president, Lester Brown.
"If the last century was the American century, this one looks to be the Chinese century."
However, per capita consumption in the world's most populous country remains far below that of the United States.
According to the report:
- China's 1.3 billion people ate 64 million tonnes of meat in 2004, compared with 38 million tonnes consumed by the 297 million people in the United States.
- China used 382 million tonnes of grain in 2004, compared to 278 million tonnes in the United States.
- China's use of steel in 2003 soared to 258 million tonnes -- more than twice that of the United States -- as hundreds of thousands of factories, high-rise apartments and office buildings were constructed for rapidly growing urban populations.
- China burned 800 million tonnes of coal compared to 574 million tonnes in the United States, leading the Earth Policy Institute to warn "it is only a matter of time until China will also be the world's top emitter of carbon."
- Sales of almost all consumer products are skyrocketing in China, especially of electronics. In 2003, China had 269 million cell phones, for example, compared to 159 million in the United States.
- The Chinese still lag behind the Americans in their use of automobiles, however, with only one-tenth of the 226 million vehicles that clog U.S. roads.
The report says that China's "voracious appetite" for goods ranging from grain to iron ore to forest products has placed it "at the centre of the world raw materials economy," driving up commodity prices and ocean shipping rates.
Brown warns that the United States, which is the world's leading debtor nation, now depends heavily on Chinese capital to underwrite its fast-growing debt.
"If China ever decides to divert this capital surplus elsewhere, either to internal investment or to the development of oil, gas, and mineral resources elsewhere in the world, the U.S. economy will be in trouble."
© the CBC, 2005
"The atmosphere acts as a bandpass filter. The nature of that filter depends to a large part on the angle which the light goes through it."
The idea that obliquely directed sunlight might be filtered differently which might affect how much UV gets thru DOES wash with me, as does the idea that a relative hole may be less significant seasonally if the overall radiation intensity is lessened by oblique sunlight. These concepts can be digested by someone who has the math to process em, they can be measured and reported on. But that's not what the article author was saying.
The author was saying the hole was like a cut-off in a cardboard box and the sun would have to look directly in it to illuminate the human targets, which is preposterous. The atmosphere is thin and whereever the ozone layer is thinner can expect to see more UV whether sunlight is oblique or direct. This was off-the cuff BS just like saying CFCs can't reach the ozone based on a ground level observation without seeing if someone HAD measured CFCs in the ozone layer and already proven that idea false. Either the author is a doofus or is manipulative and is hoping not to be questioned by readers. This kind of baseless guffawing at scientists by suggesting common (but mistaken) sense outwits all of their measurements and supersedes researching and thinking about the matter bugs me.
The idea that obliquely directed sunlight might be filtered differently which might affect how much UV gets thru DOES wash with me, as does the idea that a relative hole may be less significant seasonally if the overall radiation intensity is lessened by oblique sunlight. These concepts can be digested by someone who has the math to process em, they can be measured and reported on. But that's not what the article author was saying.
The author was saying the hole was like a cut-off in a cardboard box and the sun would have to look directly in it to illuminate the human targets, which is preposterous. The atmosphere is thin and whereever the ozone layer is thinner can expect to see more UV whether sunlight is oblique or direct. This was off-the cuff BS just like saying CFCs can't reach the ozone based on a ground level observation without seeing if someone HAD measured CFCs in the ozone layer and already proven that idea false. Either the author is a doofus or is manipulative and is hoping not to be questioned by readers. This kind of baseless guffawing at scientists by suggesting common (but mistaken) sense outwits all of their measurements and supersedes researching and thinking about the matter bugs me.
--Ian
Speaking of global warming, here is a short but interesting article that brings up some good points.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0, ... ories_html
"Speaking at an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Barnett said climate models based on air temperatures are weak because most of the evidence for global warming is not even there.
"The real place to look is in the ocean," Barnett told a news conference."
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0, ... ories_html
"Speaking at an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Barnett said climate models based on air temperatures are weak because most of the evidence for global warming is not even there.
"The real place to look is in the ocean," Barnett told a news conference."
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Interesting... Come to think of it, I have to agree."Speaking at an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Barnett said climate models based on air temperatures are weak because most of the evidence for global warming is not even there.
"The real place to look is in the ocean," Barnett told a news conference."
Air in the world has nowhere near the total heat capacitance as water. Air temperatures can fluctuate wildly. Ocean temperatures show a better net trend.
It's a little more complicated than that though. There's a big energy absorption from melting of snow and ice. It's 80 cal per gram of water vs. 1 cal per gram per degree celcius for heating water. So all that has to be taken into consideration.
And then there's even more energy absorption from the changing of water from liquid to vapor. The energy of vaporization is 540 cal per gram. And we know warmer air can hold more water.
So one needs to consider frozen water plus liquid water plus vaporized water to get the whole picture. Oye!
- Bill
-
Stryke
-
Guest
Water freezes, water melts, it evaporates, happens daily here mate. If you ever spend a winter in Banff I'll point it out to you. 
Most of my country has been buried under a kilometer thick sheet of ice on more than one occassion. If all that ice is gone I guess it's water now. So I guess lots of ice dwellers on the coast drowned a hundred centuries ago.
If the sky is falling crowd is correct I guess a few more coastal types may get wet if they don't move. How many inches a year is sea level rising?
Hell Marcus even the puny Banff spring snail can escape that flood. If your Island sinks in the flood mate your going to have to live to be much older than the 200 year gent, and you'll have to move slower than the snail.
Water rises and falls it comes and it goes. The earth gets frozen and it thaws out. IT'S CALLED AN ECO SYSTEM! Water is doing what it has always done, so is temperature.
THE SKY IS NOT FALLING!
I know the sky is not falling. Scientists have not agreed on global warming, one camp says yes one says no. There is a bunch of activists on both sides posting "the real science" and pissing on the other side. The Eco nuts have perfected backing up propoganda by claiming it's science, they have been using this tactic for a long time. It has become in vogue it's an effective spin.
The public buys it, I'm not a scientist, so I'll just trust the experts.
Well the experts I've worked with make it up as they go along to forward their own agenda or to solicit more government funds. Public opinion is votes so public opinion controls funding in many fields.
Science is as objective as journalism unfortunately.
Why do I know the sky is not falling....Well the good folks in the lab coats have not agreed on global warming...they have however agreed that helmets/ head gear help to reduce head injuries. I don't see the scientific community wearing head protection so I suspect they don't believe the sky is falling.
Then again maybe they are lying to us about bike helmets too.
Laird
BTW, I'm not discounting it's getting warmer....I just don't give a schit, it gets warm it gets cold...that's the way it has always functioned.
Most of my country has been buried under a kilometer thick sheet of ice on more than one occassion. If all that ice is gone I guess it's water now. So I guess lots of ice dwellers on the coast drowned a hundred centuries ago.
If the sky is falling crowd is correct I guess a few more coastal types may get wet if they don't move. How many inches a year is sea level rising?
Hell Marcus even the puny Banff spring snail can escape that flood. If your Island sinks in the flood mate your going to have to live to be much older than the 200 year gent, and you'll have to move slower than the snail.
Water rises and falls it comes and it goes. The earth gets frozen and it thaws out. IT'S CALLED AN ECO SYSTEM! Water is doing what it has always done, so is temperature.
THE SKY IS NOT FALLING!
I know the sky is not falling. Scientists have not agreed on global warming, one camp says yes one says no. There is a bunch of activists on both sides posting "the real science" and pissing on the other side. The Eco nuts have perfected backing up propoganda by claiming it's science, they have been using this tactic for a long time. It has become in vogue it's an effective spin.
The public buys it, I'm not a scientist, so I'll just trust the experts.
Well the experts I've worked with make it up as they go along to forward their own agenda or to solicit more government funds. Public opinion is votes so public opinion controls funding in many fields.
Science is as objective as journalism unfortunately.
Why do I know the sky is not falling....Well the good folks in the lab coats have not agreed on global warming...they have however agreed that helmets/ head gear help to reduce head injuries. I don't see the scientific community wearing head protection so I suspect they don't believe the sky is falling.
Then again maybe they are lying to us about bike helmets too.
Laird
BTW, I'm not discounting it's getting warmer....I just don't give a schit, it gets warm it gets cold...that's the way it has always functioned.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Feb 21, 2005 6:56 am, edited 4 times in total.
-
Guest
Doom and gloom guys like to perdicit the end of life on the earth yet they do not understand how most of the systems function.
Example the role of cloud cover. As the polar cap melts more and more water covers the earth, more and more of it evaporates more and more clouds fill the sky. So do we know how much cooling this increased cover will provide? In fact no global warming model has been made that can address cloud cover because we don't know enough about it to make a functional model that includes it.
Our global warming models are as acurrate as our world maps back when we knew the world was flat!
Science, good science gave us thalidamide. Too bad all the good causes got stale, like ban the bomb, hell no we wont go, etc. Hey even the eviro mental stuff was okay when rivers were catching fire in the gold old US of A , but the good causes are pretty much taken, every species protected, blah blah blah.....so why not save the earth from temperature or water.
Hey anyone want to start a group to save the world from activists 
Example the role of cloud cover. As the polar cap melts more and more water covers the earth, more and more of it evaporates more and more clouds fill the sky. So do we know how much cooling this increased cover will provide? In fact no global warming model has been made that can address cloud cover because we don't know enough about it to make a functional model that includes it.
Our global warming models are as acurrate as our world maps back when we knew the world was flat!
Science, good science gave us thalidamide. Too bad all the good causes got stale, like ban the bomb, hell no we wont go, etc. Hey even the eviro mental
stuff was okay when rivers were catching fire in the gold old US of A , but the good causes are pretty much taken, every species protected, blah blah blah.....so why not save the earth from temperature or water.Hey anyone want to start a group to save the world from activists
-
Stryke
Laird, your last few posts don't contain any facts about global warming, which is fine; they contain an argument. That appears to be:
1) science is fallible
2) there isn't even a consensus yet.
3) so, we shouldn't do anything yet.
Well, a lot of reasonable people would see it another way. I mean, when there were early reports of thalidomide induced deformities (or vioxx induced heart attacks, or lead problems in our gasoline and paint, or warnings that smoking didn't give you a "healthy cough," and so on and so on), would you have changed course? It sounds like not. And you eat the consequences. Here, the consequences are a change in climate. And you're right that climate change is part of nature, just like, I dunno, forest fires. Forests have survived forest fires since forests have existed.
Does that mean its of no consequence if we add some more? No. Just because the system works on its own doesn't mean there won't be consequences if we muck around in it.
So what we need to do, instead of "haha, stupid eco freaks, let's dismiss everything off hand," is to ask ourselves:
1) what happens if dire predictions are correct and we continue as we are?
2) what are the odds of that being the case?
3) how long do we have to study this before problems occur or are inevitable?
4) what is the cost of changing the way we live to make the problem less likely and can we tolerate it?
5) can we continue to live our modern lives, full of convenience, flashy lights, inefficient transportation, throw-away consumerism, and growth, in some less destruction manner?
6) and similar questions.
For me, it doesn't matter if the "eco nuts" are unlikely to be right. If there's a chance they are, because the consequences may be great, I'm willing to change how I live. Because for ME, throwing out a ton of trash and commuting alone and wasting energy and overpopulating the earth doesn't make me happier.
1) science is fallible
2) there isn't even a consensus yet.
3) so, we shouldn't do anything yet.
Well, a lot of reasonable people would see it another way. I mean, when there were early reports of thalidomide induced deformities (or vioxx induced heart attacks, or lead problems in our gasoline and paint, or warnings that smoking didn't give you a "healthy cough," and so on and so on), would you have changed course? It sounds like not. And you eat the consequences. Here, the consequences are a change in climate. And you're right that climate change is part of nature, just like, I dunno, forest fires. Forests have survived forest fires since forests have existed.
Does that mean its of no consequence if we add some more? No. Just because the system works on its own doesn't mean there won't be consequences if we muck around in it.
So what we need to do, instead of "haha, stupid eco freaks, let's dismiss everything off hand," is to ask ourselves:
1) what happens if dire predictions are correct and we continue as we are?
2) what are the odds of that being the case?
3) how long do we have to study this before problems occur or are inevitable?
4) what is the cost of changing the way we live to make the problem less likely and can we tolerate it?
5) can we continue to live our modern lives, full of convenience, flashy lights, inefficient transportation, throw-away consumerism, and growth, in some less destruction manner?
6) and similar questions.
For me, it doesn't matter if the "eco nuts" are unlikely to be right. If there's a chance they are, because the consequences may be great, I'm willing to change how I live. Because for ME, throwing out a ton of trash and commuting alone and wasting energy and overpopulating the earth doesn't make me happier.
--Ian
