Global Warming

[dgs49]

I am all for efficient use of resources, which as an incidental benefit, reduces CO2 emissions. I would gladly outlaw all passenger vehicles over 2 tons.

But imposing hundreds of billions in new costs on American industry to reduce CO2 emissions is simply stupid.

And in fact, I DON'T care about the plant in Texas. I just think it's funny. We have a European company spending hundreds of millions of dollars in the U.S. in order to deceive the EU into thinking they are fighting "climate change." It is priceless.

[Scooter]

You cared enough about it to post about it. Why are you critical of additional manufacturing boosting the economy of the U.S.

Of course, that would put you right in lockstep with most Republicans, who are hoping that the economy continues to stagnate over the next four years so that Obama gets no credit for any recovery.

[Scooter]

You cared enough about it to post about it. Why are you critical of additional manufacturing boosting the economy of the U.S.

Of course, that would put you right in lockstep with most Republicans, who are hoping that the economy continues to stagnate over the next four years so that Obama gets no credit for any recovery.

[Grim Reaper]

Producing the nuggets also produces gobs of CO2, but it is produced in TEXAS. Iron production with these nuggets produces less CO2 than with iron ore. This company will gain huge tax credits in its home country for reducing its carbon footprint in ironmaking. But the TOTAL global effect is a wash. they are simply gaming the system in Europe. And making our CO2 emissions greater.

Again, you seem to be of a mind that other people not trying means we shouldn't try either.

But imposing hundreds of billions in new costs on American industry to reduce CO2 emissions is simply stupid.

Let's assume $100 billion as a real number for a second, where do you think that money would go? To the industries that would develop and build the technology to reduce emissions. Would you rather have these industries located in the USA, and selling to other countries, or have other countries develop this stuff to sell to us?

[Andrew D]

Of course, that would put you right in lockstep with most Republicans, who are hoping that the economy continues to stagnate over the next four years so that Obama gets no credit for any recovery.

Bingo!

[Lord Jim]

global-warming-potential (GWP)

Since we don't know what percentage of global warming is attributable to human activity, how the hell did they cook that one up? Some sort of faux "index" that claims to be able to measure the amount of global warming created by various chemicals and devices....more BS dressed up to look like science....

[rubato]

You are really stupid.


GWP is directly measureable by a laboratory experiment. You take a given mix of gasses and expose them to sunlight and measure how much they heat up. You exchange one gas for another and measure it again. You include factors to account for persistence in the atmosphere (some molecules last longer than others and thus are more harmful) The difference gives you the difference in "global warming potential".





yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

LOL

That measures how much the gasses heat up, not how much the "global warming potential" is....To call what you've described there "global warming potential" is completely dishonest...It doesn't tell you anything of the sort.

Utter rubbish....

[dgs49]

When you spend your own money to reduce CO2 emissions, it is stupid. It is money that could have been spent actually producing something. If you can do it with someone else's money (outside the U.S.), that is great.

Anyone giving credit to O'Bama for any positive developments in the economy is economically illiterate, and not to be taken seriously.

[rubato]

Fucking ignorant morons:


________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential

Global-warming potential
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Global-warming potential (GWP) is a relative measure of how much heat a greenhouse gas traps in the atmosphere. It compares the amount of heat trapped by a certain mass of the gas in question to the amount of heat trapped by a similar mass of carbon dioxide. A GWP is calculated over a specific time interval, commonly 20, 100 or 500 years. GWP is expressed as a factor of carbon dioxide (whose GWP is standardized to 1). For example, the 20 year GWP of methane is 72, which means that if the same mass of methane and carbon dioxide were introduced into the atmosphere, that methane will trap 72 times more heat than the carbon dioxide over the next 20 years.[1]

The substances subject to restrictions under the Kyoto protocol either are rapidly increasing their concentrations in Earth's atmosphere or have a large GWP.

The GWP depends on the following factors:

the absorption of infrared radiation by a given species
the spectral location of its absorbing wavelengths
the atmospheric lifetime of the species

Thus, a high GWP correlates with a large infrared absorption and a long atmospheric lifetime. The dependence of GWP on the wavelength of absorption is more complicated. Even if a gas absorbs radiation efficiently at a certain wavelength, this may not affect its GWP much if the atmosphere already absorbs most radiation at that wavelength. A gas has the most effect if it absorbs in a "window" of wavelengths where the atmosphere is fairly transparent. The dependence of GWP as a function of wavelength has been found empirically and published as a graph.[2]

Because the GWP of a greenhouse gas depends directly on its infrared spectrum, the use of infrared spectroscopy to study greenhouse gases is centrally important in the effort to understand the impact of human activities on global climate change. ... "
____________________________


Republicans are innately stupid.

yrs,
rubato



_________________________________

[Grim Reaper]

When you spend your own money to reduce CO2 emissions, it is stupid. It is money that could have been spent actually producing something. If you can do it with someone else's money (outside the U.S.), that is great.

Right, lets just take more money out of the USA instead of bringing more money here. Lay down and die, that's your strategy. Let someone else fix the problem, let someone else take the lead.

And you act like businesses spend everything on increasing production. I guess the record profits they've been posting for the past several years are just them getting ready to start producing more stuff any day now.

Anyone giving credit to O'Bama for any positive developments in the economy is economically illiterate, and not to be taken seriously.

Your use of "O'Bama" reduces your already strained credibility.

[Scooter]

Hey, it's a step up from "knee grows" which he used in the past with regularity.

[Lord Jim]

Rube, I'm not going to waste a lot of time with you on this, because it involves a basic grasp of logic and common sense as well a willingness to be honest, three things which are about as foreign to you as Swahili is to me, but just this once:

If we can't even measure the macro impact of overall human activity on global warming, (and so far we haven't been able to; logic indicates human activity plays some role in current global warming, but to date, the percentage is unknown.) any claim to be able to measure the micro impact of any particular human activity must be false.

Global-warming potential (GWP) is a relative measure of how much heat a greenhouse gas traps in the atmosphere.

Whoever decided to give that name to that process was being as intellectually dishonest as you commonly are. (which is probably why you're so taken with it; whether the topic is science, economics, gun effects, etc., you always seem to be drawn to the intellectually dishonest)

That process does not measure what the name implies; it should be called something like "Greenhouse Gas Index"; not the "Global Warming Potential"

[rubato]

GWP includes both the amount of light which is absorbed and turned into heat per unit time and the time the gasses persist in the atmosphere.

Taken alone, the first part relates to 'greenhouse' effect. But both must be included to estimate the net effect on the environment of releases of equal amounts of gas. And because we are measuring these things because of their effects on global warming the name is more honest than not. To a thinking person.



yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

Jim, regardless of what you think of rubato, it's silly to blame him for the term "Global Warming Potential" (GWP). A cursory search will show that the use of that term seems to be well-established in scientific and academic circles as well as with governmental and international agencies dealing with climate issues.

And rubato, regardless of what you think of Jim, dgs, and Republicans in general, it's silly and counterproductive to throw gratuitous insults (such as "fucking ignorant morons" and "innately stupid") into what should be a simple straightforward explanation of a well-defined technical term with which many people may not be familiar.

Just sayin'

[Lord Jim]

Econo, I didn't, and don't "blame" rube for the term. I pointed out that it's a misnomer, and he chose to jump in to defend it. The explanation for the process it describes that he provides has done nothing but further solidify my view. I don't care who came up with it; it's misleadingly misnamed.

(Oh, and kudos to you for acknowledging rube's gratuitous insult behavior. Unfortunately, I fear that asking him not to engage in it is likely to be about as successful as asking a cow not to moo....)

[dgs49]

According to NASA/Goddard, the global mean surface temperature has increased from a low (in a trough on the graph) is about 1900 to a current high that a little less than one degree Celsius higher than the lowest point on the graph.

This is the period during which man's output of CO2 increased at the most rapid rate in human history. The rate of increase is, historically speaking, relatively flat right now, helped along by the global recession (which shows NO signs of abating, by the way).

One fucking degree in 110 plus years.

If this isn't enough to make you panic, then you are clearly on drugs or malfunctioning mentally.

[Scooter]

The temperature difference it took to transform the planet from habitable to ice age was five degrees. One degree doesn't sound insignificant at all, in that context.

And a slowing in the rate of increase in CO2 output means little if the actual output is already at the highest levels the world has ever experienced.

[Grim Reaper]

That one degree has done a lot of damage so far and any future increases will only exacerbate the problem. And you're so concerned with these poor industries having to spend money reducing their emissions while not considering for a second the increased expenditures that will be needed as the sea level continues to rise.

Of course you won't care then, you'll just blame the displaced people instead of those responsible.

[rubato]

Jim, regardless of what you think of rubato, it's silly to blame him for the term "Global Warming Potential" (GWP). A cursory search will show that the use of that term seems to be well-established in scientific and academic circles as well as with governmental and international agencies dealing with climate issues.

And rubato, regardless of what you think of Jim, dgs, and Republicans in general, it's silly and counterproductive to throw gratuitous insults (such as "fucking ignorant morons" and "innately stupid") into what should be a simple straightforward explanation of a well-defined technical term with which many people may not be familiar.

Just sayin'

I respond with less insult than I receive.

If this has not been apparent to you then you do not read LJs posts, which speaks well of your judgement.

yrs,
rubato