TheCorinthian Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 I used to give people hell because the US did not sign the Wherever Accords that agreed to reduce green house gas emissions. Then I started working in third world countries like Djibouti, Ethiopia, Iraq, ect, and 2nd world countries like Thailand. I see now what the US and to a lesser extent the UK were saying when they said the model and the accord were full of it. No one in the above listed countries and the vast amount of other ones, has any clue how much green house gasses they are really emitting and there would be no way to control them if they did. They have whole piles of catalytic converters in Iraq and Africa. The cars come with them but the locals pull them off to get better gas mileage. So basically you need a 1st world country to control the emissions and even figure out what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekong Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 I used to give people hell because the US did not sign the Wherever Accords that agreed to reduce green house gas emissions. Then I started working in third world countries like Djibouti, Ethiopia, Iraq, ect, and 2nd world countries like Thailand. I see now what the US and to a lesser extent the UK were saying when they said the model and the accord were full of it. No one in the above listed countries and the vast amount of other ones, has any clue how much green house gasses they are really emitting and there would be no way to control them if they did. They have whole piles of catalytic converters in Iraq and Africa. The cars come with them but the locals pull them off to get better gas mileage. So basically you need a 1st world country to control the emissions and even figure out what they are. I Totally disagree about your statement about emmissions in Thailand, for the past 2-3 years IEA (Industrial Estates Authority of Thailand) have been strictly enforcing emmissions standards. PTT have a US$ 1 Billion Gas Processing Plant on Hold, IEA will not grant a licence until at least another US$ 30 Million is invested to bring emmissions inline with current standards. Thai Oil and Bangchak Refineries are replacing their Sulphur Revovery Units with SCOT units to reduce Sulphur emmissions. Any new Gas Turbine installed had to emit less than 10ppm NOX. I work in the Oil and Gas Industry over here and what I am stating is from first hand experience. Back to the OP, "Carbon Footprint" is only a small part of the enviromental impact of industry. In my 20 plus years in the game I have seen major changes towards "Cleaner" process plants. As for China well thats another story! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldFun Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 I vote for the move earth farther away from the sun approach, but not too far please - we don't want to start freezing here at equator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglesoup Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 I cant really vote in this because I dont know the real science about it...I need to educate myself with a objective science journal or some authoritive book on the subject... At the minute I think we are all in situation where we have to accept on blind faith what the experts are saying... The other sticking point for me is that its become so political. The media now just talk about about GW from one side,that it is a foregone conclusion. I would like to hear some experts from both sides explain their theories and reasons for and against global warming. I mean is it really scientifically true that the sea, forests, animal dung produce hundreds of times more emissions than humans? If so, then is the climate system so finely balanced that the 2% increase in emissions that humans are responsible for making the difference? Can anyone who knows about this answer this? I dont even know if what I m saying is right. I think you can't make a decision on this unless we really know about it. Thats the annoying thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickfarang Posted July 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 I'm not an expert, but I've been reading about this for more than 10 years in Scientific American and on various web sites. I think that the planet is about ready for a warm spell. Hey - it was either that or a big freeze. I think a warm spell will be easier overall for humanity to handle. Sadly, there is nothing we can do to stop it, though the extreme efforts advocated by many (and increasingly popular by remade politicians) may be able to slow the change a little bit. In the end, we will be much better off spending our scientific, political, and economic capitol in planning and provisioning to deal with the massive effects of the impending changes, than to squander it on convincing people to switch from incandescent to florescent lights. IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkman Posted July 15, 2007 Report Share Posted July 15, 2007 Many seem to feel that GW is a foregone conclusion with the debate settled. I would ask those who hold this opinion three questions ... 1/ How do you explain the cooling period shown by the data from 1945 to 1970 ? [dates approx] 2/ How do you explain that Mars, which has no atmosphere or greenhouse gasses, is warming also ? Does the fact that both the Earth and Mars derive energy directly and only from the sun not suggest another explanation ? 3/ Given that the atmosphere can easily expand in to space as it warms, why would the more energetic CO2 molecules which are lighter [and thus higher up in the atmosphere] than water vapor [another greenhouse gas] cause the ice to melt and oceans to rise ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shygye Posted July 15, 2007 Report Share Posted July 15, 2007 Mars atmosphere is 95% carbon dioxide. Venus atmosphere is 96% carbon dioxide. CO2 reflects infrared back to the Earths surface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trooper Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 Based on what I know about the subject really sad to see the results of this poll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jondoefour Posted July 22, 2007 Report Share Posted July 22, 2007 It is not just the Earth that is warming up, so is Jupitor, Mars, etc... The sun is going thru a 'HOT' cycle and all the planets are heating up. So, it is not the atmosphere that causing the global warming. The earth is going thru a warm period but not because of anything mankind has done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shygye Posted July 22, 2007 Report Share Posted July 22, 2007 You are wrong! Solar Output A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change. It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.