What's gonna be worse for us? Global warming or Peak oil?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Mar 30 2007, 09:49 AM) [snapback]414826[/snapback]</div>

Again I am no scientist but I don't understand how they can take data over 420 million years and draw a conclusion about what is happening over the last 10, 20, 30 years and decide what is going to happen over the next 100. the article states:"This study confirms that in the Earth's past 420 million years, each doubling of atmospheric CO2 translates to an average global temperature increase of about 3° Celsius, or 5° Fahrenheit." There is no reference as to how fast this change in temperature happened. Was it in ten years, 100 years, 1000 years, or 10,000 years? It would make a signifiicant difference. Hasn't the amount of co2 more than tripled in the atmosphere already?

 

Allright, I'll try this again, and I'm sure it will get ignored again.
GW is only ONE reason to cut back on oil usage.
The more important reason is to prepare for peak oil and remove the middle eastern hold on our nuts.

So why are we still trying to convince Malorn, Dberman, and others about GW? And why do they repeated try to get in arguments about GW?
The solutions to GW is the same solutions to peak oil and US energy independance, which any red blooded American should support.
WHO CARES if GW is real?! We need to change regardless due to financial and security reasons!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Mar 30 2007, 11:47 AM) [snapback]414907[/snapback]</div>

I agree with you, we need to change many things. I just don't "believe" in man-made global warming or that peak oil is right around the corner. The national security arguements I buy completely. If we are talking national security should we also talk about the technology and financial problems being presented to us with the trade situation with China and Japan?

 

If you agree we have a national security problem with our addiction to oil, then why spend so much effort arguing against GW, when the soultion to GW is the same solution. Let liberals use GW as a reason for change and let conservatives use national security as a reason for the SAME change.

As for China and Japan, I'm not sure how that relates.
For one thing, when the oil flow slows, We will buy a lot less useless crap from them, as the cost to produce it as well as ship accross the ocean will skyrocket for them too.
I don't know what technology problem we have. Any technology that anybody comes up with should be used by any and all people/countries that want to actually survive in a post oil world.

I make the same argument to liberals that I did above to you. Why bother? The debate should not be wether GW is real or not, it's irrelevant. The debate should be when do we need to be off oil and how should we go about doing it. Otherwise it's just another "tastes great/less filling" debate.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Mar 30 2007, 09:00 AM) [snapback]414868[/snapback]</div>

I think the temperature increase follows increases in CO2 by an order of magnitude of 100s of years on average. At least that's my guess based on what I've seen scientists say and write.

So if we have more than tripled the amount of atmospheric CO2 over the last few centuries, then we should expect the planet might continue to warm for centuries to come (barring other major catastrophes like a massive volcanic event or a nuclear war - which could block out the sun and rapidly cool the planet).

I'm all for stopping the flow of money to the middle east, but for me, by far, the best reason to stop using oil is Global Warming - as it's going to harm our way of life far more than terrorism could. The only question is how bad are we going to let it become!

 

"I'm all for stopping the flow of money to the middle east, but for me, by far, the best reason to stop using oil is Global Warming - as it's going to harm our way of life far more than terrorism could. The only question is how bad are we going to let it become!"

That's great. Even if its irrelevant. Oil supply problems are going to cause a severe reduction in availablility long before Americans will willingly change due to climactic guilt (I don't mean post coital either). We likely see a severe economic depression and an explosion of alternative solutions based on necessity, rather than on a perceived need to stop global warming.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe global warming is happening, but I don't believe that we can change it. IF we stop using oil tomorrow which is impossible, China and India will gleefully take what we don't (and get it at a cheaper price). But as I've said many times, the reason to dislodge ourselves from the Arab teet are many, so use whichever one you want.

The real key is this: It will take a lot of oil to produce the post oil economy. We cannot wait till their is a crises to do it, or there won't be enough supply to do anything about it. So STOP arguing why we need to do it and start arguing why we aren't doing it RIGHT NOW.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Mar 30 2007, 09:00 AM) [snapback]414868[/snapback]</div>

How quickly the temperature changes is dependant on many factors. In many systems you can add an input factor steadily and there may be no change until a particular threshhold is reached then changes may start to take place. Upon reaching a bifurcation point, additional input can create very fast and drastic changes which include restructuralization. Use 1 gram of H2O solid for example. At 31deg F you can add 1 calorie and increase the ice's temperature by 1 deg F to make 32deg F. Add 1 more calorie and nothing happens, add 2 more degrees and nothing happens. As you know it will require 80 additional calories to change state from ice to liquid water before the temperature can change again. Going from liquid water to gas requires 540 calories. So as you can see there are many variables to consider.

As for the direct answer to your question, I am not sure if there is an exact answer due to so many variables but the general opinion is that temperature swings can take place in as little as a few years or decades if a threshold or bifucation point is reached or as long as millenia in other circumstances. It all comes down to feedback loops.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Mar 30 2007, 12:43 PM) [snapback]415012[/snapback]</div>

I seriously hope you are dead wrong about Americans' unwillingness to change their habits before fossil fuels become uneconomical. To save civilization we have to stop emitting carbon yesterday! Oil (and especially) coal will last us centuries even if we are about to peak in oil production so it won't be the "necessity" you are hoping for. The necessity from GW is more than enough for politicians to act - we don't need complete consensus from all citizens anyway.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Mar 30 2007, 04:09 PM) [snapback]415070[/snapback]</div>

Well unfortunately I think he is right. Change is inevitable, but it only happens when things get too uncomfortable for the masses. Here is my argument: Why are so many still driving vehicles with a gas consumption worse then 1920's cars? A: Gasoline is not expensive enough. People can still afford, and some more easily then others, to drive whatever they want without considering cost. The major shift to more efficient cars and incidentally cleaner vehicles will happen out of financial necessity not environmental concern.

You cannot readily see environmental damage happening unless it is catastrophic (oil spill, chemical plant accident, etc) , you cannot readily see environmental damage to your organs and bodies, worse yet we can't even agree on the value of a habitat, health or environment loss. When value cannot be established or is greatly debated and continuously refuted, most don't see any harm, because there is no perceive co$t to them.

What you see here is what is referred to as creeping normalcy. Changes happen so gradually and minutely, that they constantly reset the base line to what is considered harmful or harmless. Only when critical mass i reached and system or concept collapses, will we see change in attitude and behaviour.

I personally don't need that much convincing to mend my ways

 

I too, hope my statement is untrue, but I fear it is not.
I still need to go to work, and I drive a Prius, but it still burns gas.
But, I don't see any electric cars out there I can afford, so what am I supposed to do?
1/2 the country agrees with Malorn, Dberman, etc. that GW is a hoax, or at least not a crises.

So as I've said elsewhere, it will take a multipronged approach just to convince the general public of the need to change. GW to liberals, National Security/Peak oil to the conservatives/neo(non)conservatives.

And THEN, it will take a multipronged approach to tackle the problem. Including nuclear, renewables, ethanol, and the dreaded CONSERVATION. Conservation is the biggest oil field we could possibly tap into, but won't unless its forced upon us. (A true addiction).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lywyllyn @ Mar 30 2007, 02:36 PM) [snapback]415084[/snapback]</div>

Oh I totally agree in making it a financial necessity for people to change but let's create that motivation NOW, artificially, through government incentives and carbon taxes not by waiting for supply and demand issues that won't appear for decades.

The government needs to force citizens and corporations into doing what is necessary whether we all see the dangers or not. That's what it is there for. To act as stewards for the greater good. Most people welcome this I think.

That's why I write my elected officials regularly to encourage them to act. In Canada they are starting to.

Me neither, and the same can be said for many people so I'm confident big changes will come soon.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Mar 30 2007, 03:37 PM) [snapback]415127[/snapback]</div>

I hope that isn't true. You probably aren't much different from us. And right now Canadians as a group are very concerned about the environment. In recent polls I think 80% said it was the number one issue facing the country!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Mar 30 2007, 03:54 PM) [snapback]415138[/snapback]</div>

Clayton Thomas-Mueller had a lot to say about Canada's future and of its indigenous people.. He is a great guy. He spoke at last years Bioneers Conference.

And of course you guys have the great David Suzuki!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Mar 30 2007, 04:35 AM) [snapback]414755[/snapback]</div>

It's not my mark to be either on or off, tripp ... rather it’s the brighter people than us (even brighter than your helmet :^) avatar) that are saying so ~ Biomass, palm oil, Grain alcohol, etc have limited potential at best, if folks know what’s good for them. Ramp up production as high as 20% and viola! Here's the mess and destruction we end up with:

http://breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8O7T4...=1&catnum=0

Ethanol is a loser for the same reasons. Sure all energy has toxic ramifications, and the lower the power yield, the greater the toxicity ratio becomes. So why waste energy and resources to get a low yield? As to the 20%-30% figure? I'm guessing that's an amorphic guess because as stated earlier ... population counts are WAY on the rise ... so if we'e forced off oil, we'll have to come up with sorces providing better than 20-30%.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Apr 1 2007, 02:13 PM) [snapback]416058[/snapback]</div>

First, it's funny how there are about 5 conversations going on in this thread.

Ethanol from food crops is a loser (for a variety of reasons). Yes. I won't argue that. Ethanol from ag, forestry, and municipal waste is a different story. According to DOE the potential of ag residue as a source of ethanol is double that of corn derived ethanol. That's pretty substantial. For any of this to work, however, we have to get WAY more efficient. Pissing oil away in ICEs needs to be stopped. Moving the transportation sector to electricity is the fastest and most efficient way to achieve that.

 

Yes, Ethanol as a replacement fuel for the general public is not going to be a winner.
But, it is a stepping stone to better ways to produce biofuel that we will need.
Electric cars will probably beat out biofuel for the average driver. But I just can't fathom electric tractors, or electric planes. Air travel will need fuel, not batteries. Adn with ethanol or biodiesel, the rural corn belt can produce their own fuel for producing food crops.
The "energy loser" argument is a little shortsighted. US Agriculture is using farm equipment developed with the idea od cheap oil. These combines are absolute beheamoths and need not be that fuel inefficient. I am certain that the ag industry is finally going to start to look at fuel usage as a factor in their purchases. They will get better at producing fuels from crops, they will choose better crops, They will manage their land better and use less pesticides and fertilizers, they will use better equipement, and on and on. Cellolosic ethanol IS ethanol, it has potential BECAUSE of the push for ethanol, not in spite of it.

Even if a farmer has to use 1/3 of his acreage to meet his own fuel requirements, they will opt to do that, rather than hire 100's of people to walk their fields and manually pick crops. Now reestablish the rail lines that USED to carry the crops to market, and we have the start of a post oil infrastructure!