POLL: Do you believe in human-caused ("AGW") global warming?

[mczerone]

Here's an example of a solution to a pollution problem that's technical (not political):

http://inhabitat.com/19-year-old-st...50000-tons-of-plastic-from-the-worlds-oceans/

But as long as the oceans remain common property, the funding will likely be political. Who will fund this? Shippers? Fishermen? Greenpeacers? Or the joint efforts of the USA, Japan, China, and Russia?

Likewise for the atmosphere. If there are no owners, then only those who spend money for public relations concerns and direct usage will spend to maintain sustainability, and the result will be political boondoggling.

 

[erowe1]

Also, horses emitted CO2 all the time.

To say nothing of other kinds of pollution.

 

[Neil Desmond]

But as long as the oceans remain common property, the funding will likely be political. Who will fund this? Shippers? Fishermen? Greenpeacers? Or the joint efforts of the USA, Japan, China, and Russia?

Likewise for the atmosphere. If there are no owners, then only those who spend money for public relations concerns and direct usage will spend to maintain sustainability, and the result will be political boondoggling.

My point about pollution is that there is the stuff that does affect us and there's the potential fearmongering snake oil salesman (who I might add is trying to use the government for his agenda).

But, to answer your question, there are many non government involvement solutions, such as getting the funding from private donations, industries that make or use plastic funding it (for PR and what not), etc.

 

[Kelly.]

Just to be sure it's clear, don't confuse an efficiency percentage with percentage of gases that the engine doesn't burn. The percentage of efficiency has to do with how much energy there is, and how much of that energy is converted into mechanical work or heat:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(thermodynamics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency

A gallon of gasoline has 1.3x10[sup]8[/sup] Joules of energy (source: http://www.evworld.com/library/energy_numbers.pdf). Say you have an internal combustion engine that is 25% efficient. What this means is that of those 1.3x10[sup]8[/sup] Joules of energy, 0.325x10[sup]8[/sup] Joules of that energy is being converted to mechanical work (and the rest is getting converted into heat).

In the Wikipedia "engine efficiency" article, under the section "Oxygen", it states that fuel that isn't burned (in the combustion chamber) reduces certain pollutants (e.g., NOx) but raises others (e.g., partically decomposed HxCy).

the rest isnt ALL turned into heat. gases that werent burned completely, or were burned and broke down to smaller hydrocarbon chains still exist after the combustion cycle, and are expelled via the exhaust cycle.
i do agree with most of your post, although i think my point stands. internal combustion engines expel gases that absorb heat.
to say this has no effect on the environment, to me is false.

 

[erowe1]

the rest isnt ALL turned into heat. gases ....

When he says "the rest" he means the rest of the energy.

 

[Neil Desmond]

the rest isnt ALL turned into heat. gases that werent burned completely, or were burned and broke down to smaller hydrocarbon chains still exist after the combustion cycle, and are expelled via the exhaust cycle.
i do agree with most of your post, although i think my point stands. internal combustion engines expel gases that absorb heat.
to say this has no effect on the environment, to me is false.

Yes, I should've been more articulate about that - the gallon of gasoline would be what is burned (not necessarily what you put in your fuel tank). My point was just to clarify that it's not 60% (with respect to your 40% example) of that gallon of gasoline that isn't getting burned. I was trying to find out what exactly that percentage is (and I'm guessing that it's probably in the vicinity of far less than 1%) of the fuel ends up as unburned chemicals from internal combustion engines, but wasn't able to find anything. Do you have information on this?

 

[Kelly.]

When he says "the rest" he means the rest of the energy.

ah, got it, i misread it.

this still doesnt address the fact that all the gasoline sprayed into a cylinder is not completely gone by the exhaust stroke, and it then pushed out into the environment/biosphere.

i guess all im saying is, to say the pollution humans cause has zero effect on the planet is crazy. almost as crazy as those who think changes in the biosphere are solely man created.

 

[moostraks]

The problem with the sea ice arguments is that they are forming a hypothesis based upon a roughly 30 year analysis. I think the data is too limited to be making a legitimate argument from which to run hither and yon in panic.

I believe the government is corrupt and is waging a war against the little person for effects brought on through nefarious programs that are benefitting corporate interests. Mega corps are driving up costs and causing devastating effects to the environment through things such as hush hush weather modification programs while blaming the average person for breathing and breeding (said intentionally to reflect the level of contempt they feel towards the general populace).

 

[ronpaulfollower999]

The problem with the sea ice arguments is that they are forming a hypothesis based upon a roughly 30 year analysis. I think the data is too limited to be making a legitimate argument from which to run hither and yon in panic.

This.

 

[RickyJ]

I voted no, only because you forgot to have a "hell f*cking no!" option.

 

[Neil Desmond]

I voted no, only because you forgot to have a "hell f*cking no!" option.

Oh, sorry. Next time I'll try not to forget.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

ah, got it, i misread it.

this still doesnt address the fact that all the gasoline sprayed into a cylinder is not completely gone by the exhaust stroke, and it then pushed out into the environment/biosphere.

i guess all im saying is, to say the pollution humans cause has zero effect on the planet is crazy. almost as crazy as those who think changes in the biosphere are solely man created.

This is correct to an extent. We have a story or 2 around here about Iraqi kids born with grotesque malformations due to the junk the military has put into their environment. However, it is also true that the Earth is a closed system. What you see as "damage" is just existing material taking new forms.

 

[Kelly.]

This is correct to an extent. We have a story or 2 around here about Iraqi kids born with grotesque malformations due to the junk the military has put into their environment. However, it is also true that the Earth is a closed system. What you see as "damage" is just existing material taking new forms.

you seem to imply that material taking new forms is as harmless as the previous form, which i disagree with. (or read it wrong)

if you are referring to the deleted uranium used in fallujah causing malformed babies, imo that is a crime against humanity. war crime whatever you want to call it. we (by proxy) added that uranium / phosphorus to their environment and now are seeing the results.

Jamail says that the current rate of birth defects for the city of Fallujah has surpassed those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the nuclear attacks at the end of World War II.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/iraq-war-anniversary-birth-defects-cancer_n_2917701.html