308_Husker Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but the United States EPA has a good run down on the sources of greenhouse gas emissions from the US: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html Link to comment
beanman Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 Why don't we put money into researching Molten Salt Nuclear Reactor designs again given 33% of our emissions come from Electricity production? I mean, we should be past the point where we need to be arguing whether or not we are contributing to the warming of the earth. It seems pretty likely no matter how skeptical you might be. So what we should be discussing is what to do about it. What does everyone think should be done in our country? 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 The classic global warming graph from 2001. Notice anything around 1900, when we really started to use fossil fuels? Why do they use an average from 1961-1990? By doing a graph like that, it is automatically going to appear that everything after 1990 is above the line and everything before that period is below that line. Link to comment
beanman Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 The classic global warming graph from 2001. Notice anything around 1900, when we really started to use fossil fuels? Why do they use an average from 1961-1990? By doing a graph like that, it is automatically going to appear that everything after 1990 is above the line and everything before that period is below that line. Come on man. Does it really matter where they place the reference axis? It doesn't change what the data clearly shows. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 The classic global warming graph from 2001. Notice anything around 1900, when we really started to use fossil fuels? Why do they use an average from 1961-1990? By doing a graph like that, it is automatically going to appear that everything after 1990 is above the line and everything before that period is below that line. Come on man. Does it really matter where they place the reference axis? It doesn't change what the data clearly shows. Hmmm....yes it would. Looking at the graph, immediately, it appears that the earth wasn't warming at all until the 1900s. If the earth has continually warmed for the last several centuries (on average) and you move that base reference point to....say....1700, the way the data is displayed would show that everything before 1700 is below the line and everything after 1700 is above the line. ( unless I am totally misunderstanding what they are trying to show in the graph) Link to comment
beanman Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 The classic global warming graph from 2001. Notice anything around 1900, when we really started to use fossil fuels? Why do they use an average from 1961-1990? By doing a graph like that, it is automatically going to appear that everything after 1990 is above the line and everything before that period is below that line. Come on man. Does it really matter where they place the reference axis? It doesn't change what the data clearly shows. Hmmm....yes it would. Looking at the graph, immediately, it appears that the earth wasn't warming at all until the 1900s. If the earth has continually warmed for the last several centuries (on average) and you move that base reference point to....say....1700, the way the data is displayed would show that everything before 1700 is below the line and everything after 1700 is above the line. ( unless I am totally misunderstanding what they are trying to show in the graph) If you remove the reference line and put the absolute value of the temperatures it still wouldn't change anything man. All this does is gives you a convenient scale/reference point to look at since the departures in temperature are so small. Link to comment
Someone Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 The classic global warming graph from 2001. Notice anything around 1900, when we really started to use fossil fuels? Why do they use an average from 1961-1990? By doing a graph like that, it is automatically going to appear that everything after 1990 is above the line and everything before that period is below that line. What years do you want to see graphed? Link to comment
Junior Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 Just so everyone is clear, there is no scientific debate about global warming and the human effect. Link to comment
beanman Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 Just so everyone is clear, there is no scientific debate about global warming and the human effect. Exactly why it'd be nice to hear people's ideas on how to fix the issue rather than continue to go back and forth on whether or not humans are contributing to the problem. Link to comment
Junior Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 Just so everyone is clear, there is no scientific debate about global warming and the human effect. Exactly why it'd be nice to hear people's ideas on how to fix the issue rather than continue to go back and forth on whether or not humans are contributing to the problem. I agree, in theory, but you have to convince people and the lawmakers that they need to worry about it first. You and I can talk all we want about solutions... but Republican lawmakers have to understand the effect is real and something needs to be done. Link to comment
beanman Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 Just so everyone is clear, there is no scientific debate about global warming and the human effect. Exactly why it'd be nice to hear people's ideas on how to fix the issue rather than continue to go back and forth on whether or not humans are contributing to the problem. I agree, in theory, but you have to convince people and the lawmakers that they need to worry about it first. You and I can talk all we want about solutions... but Republican lawmakers have to understand the effect is real and something needs to be done. Good luck convincing them. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 OK...... Humans play a part in global warming. Every system of continual improvement I have been involved with is based around the theory that you tackle the largest problems first. So..... a) What country is producing the most pollutants? b) What is the main sources of those pollutants? China produces almost 29% more CO2 than we do and are at the top of the list of polluting countries. Sources of their pollution. Link to comment
beanman Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 OK...... Humans play a part in global warming. Every system of continual improvement I have been involved with is based around the theory that you tackle the largest problems first. So..... a) What country is producing the most pollutants? b) What is the main sources of those pollutants? China produces almost 29% more CO2 than we do and are at the top of the list of polluting countries. Sources of their pollution. Well, they are a problem,no doubt about that. But I guess I like to focus on our own issues first. Your link makes me glad that I've managed to avoid travelling to China for business throughout the years. I don't claim to be an expert on any of this stuff, but I'd be interested in hearing what people's opinions are on what our country should do if we would take action. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted June 10, 2013 Author Share Posted June 10, 2013 If you were born in or after April 1985, if you are right now 27 years old or younger, you have never lived through a month that was colder than average. That’s beyond astonishing. If you were born in or after April 1985, January 1998 if you are right now 27 15 years old or younger, you have never lived through a(n) month that was colder than average. undefeated Husker football season. That’s beyond astonishing. Both of those quotes are amazing. Link to comment
Recommended Posts