NASA head changes mind on Climate Change

124

Replies

  • JayJay Senior Member Posts: 3,323 Senior Member

    In other words, when the folks you're trying to explain something to are basically saying they don't buy your theory because it's based on made up, unproven data, and then you try to make a point using made up data, you don't help your argument.

  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,594 Senior Member
    Jay said:

    In other words, when the folks you're trying to explain something to are basically saying they don't buy your theory because it's based on made up, unproven data, and then you try to make a point using made up data, you don't help your argument.

    Close enough. At least 90% goes to various fuels that are burned including diesel, fuel oil, and jet fuel. Less than 10% goes to things that aren't typically burned like asphalt, lubricants and plastics. I also didn't factor in all the ethanol and natural gas liquids that get blended in. Also there's the refinery gain fraction I didn't account for which is 42 gallons of crude actually produces 45 gallons of product due to changes in density after refining. But then a more precise answer would provide nothing to the discussion, the order of magnitude estimate is good enough.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,831 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    There are roughly 7.6 billion people on the planet. Each person emits 2.3 lbs of CO2 per day with the heavy exercisers/workers emitting up to 8 times that figure. That equals to 17,480,000,000 lbs of CO2 emissions per day, or 8,740,000 tons of CO2 per day. Burning a gallon of gasoline emits 19.6 pounds of CO2.
    How to reduce CO2 emissions? Reduce the population to pre Dark Ages level. ALL CO2 production from the population would be reduced to an insignificant level. See! EZPZ!
    Since we're doing mass balances, the world consumes 93 Million barrels of oil a day. a barrel is 42 gallons so that's 3.9 Billion gallons a day. As you suggested each gallon produces 19.6 lbs of CO2. Doing the math I get 38 million tons a day from just burning oil or close to 5 times the amount from breathing alone. That's just oil and doesn't include natural gas and coal which are also huge emitters. I could quickly look up totals, but it's safe to say energy alone is at least 10x the emissions before we even touch agriculture, deforestation, and other anthropogenic sources of emissions.
    I see you studiously IGNORED the second paragraph of my post. It IS a viable alternative.
    And a LOT of that oil is used for other purposes besides fuel.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • JayJay Senior Member Posts: 3,323 Senior Member
    Jay said:

    In other words, when the folks you're trying to explain something to are basically saying they don't buy your theory because it's based on made up, unproven data, and then you try to make a point using made up data, you don't help your argument.

    Close enough. At least 90% goes to various fuels that are burned including diesel, fuel oil, and jet fuel. Less than 10% goes to things that aren't typically burned like asphalt, lubricants and plastics. I also didn't factor in all the ethanol and natural gas liquids that get blended in. Also there's the refinery gain fraction I didn't account for which is 42 gallons of crude actually produces 45 gallons of product due to changes in density after refining. But then a more precise answer would provide nothing to the discussion, the order of magnitude estimate is good enough.
    My point is, the guys are no too arguing whether climate change is real or not. They are saying they don’t buy man made climate change, in large part because it’s based on made up, unproven theories. Then, you make stuff up to argue back. 

    Roughly 20 gallons of gasoline and 11 gallons of fuel oil come soon out of a barrel of oil. Or, about 74 percent. Of course, that depends on the quality of the crude and refining process. But, roughly 74%. And, the number you used specifically stated gasoline. But you made stuff up in order to dramatize your argument. Which is pretty much why they don’t buy your theory. 
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,594 Senior Member
    At least 20% of all oil produced is used in other products, not fuels (everything from plastics to medication).  Not all fuels are burned equally.  I hate bullet point presentations without substance...

    BTW you’ll be happy to know both my wife and my car rate 8 out of 10 (10 being best) on the scale for greenhouse emissions at the tailpipe according to fuel economy.gov.  How does your car rate?????
    I ride an electric train with a few hundred other people for 90% of my transportation needs. 
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • MichakavMichakav Senior Member Posts: 2,413 Senior Member
    edited July 2018 #97
    At least 20% of all oil produced is used in other products, not fuels (everything from plastics to medication).  Not all fuels are burned equally.  I hate bullet point presentations without substance...

    BTW you’ll be happy to know both my wife and my car rate 8 out of 10 (10 being best) on the scale for greenhouse emissions at the tailpipe according to fuel economy.gov.  How does your car rate?????
    I ride an electric train with a few hundred other people for 90% of my transportation needs. 
    Electricity generation accounts for roughly 34% of co2 emissions. Maybe you should ride a bike. 

    Plastic? Do you use it? Yea, I figured you did. Producing 1# of PET can produce up to 3# of co2. You should only use paper. Oh wait, paper production uses high amounts of electricity and is the 4th largest emitter of green house gases due to production and methane release from landfills. 



    etc...etc....etc

    I know..."do as I say, not as I do"
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,554 Senior Member
    I am completely in favor of conserving natural resources and practicing good stewardship of the planet. I'm in favor of developing alternate resources of power, as the technology improves and makes it more cost-effective. Solar and wind power should be refined and made more efficient, at less cost, so that when we truly are running short of fossil fuels, in a hundred years or so, we will already have started the transition. I'm in favor of hydroelectric power, nuclear power, and any other scientific advancement that will make coal a better, cleaner source of energy.

    But I'm 100% against science by consensus, rather than empirical proof, that is embraced as an ideology by otherwise bankrupt political movements that have to continuously recruit new useful idiots to help them cram it down the throats of ordinary citizens who want nothing more than a government that exercises a little bit of common sense.

    The world is ripe for new advancements that can dwarf those of the past, but they won't be made by third rate scientists that tailor their research to whatever gets them the most influence with power hungry politicians that dole out grants to any starving scientist who will help them sell their snake oil.
  • MichakavMichakav Senior Member Posts: 2,413 Senior Member
    edited July 2018 #99
    bisley said:
    I am completely in favor of conserving natural resources and practicing good stewardship of the planet. I'm in favor of developing alternate resources of power, as the technology improves and makes it more cost-effective. Solar and wind power should be refined and made more efficient, at less cost, so that when we truly are running short of fossil fuels, in a hundred years or so, we will already have started the transition. I'm in favor of hydroelectric power, nuclear power, and any other scientific advancement that will make coal a better, cleaner source of energy.

    But I'm 100% against science by consensus, rather than empirical proof, that is embraced as an ideology by otherwise bankrupt political movements that have to continuously recruit new useful idiots to help them cram it down the throats of ordinary citizens who want nothing more than a government that exercises a little bit of common sense.

    The world is ripe for new advancements that can dwarf those of the past, but they won't be made by third rate scientists that tailor their research to whatever gets them the most influence with power hungry politicians that dole out grants to any starving scientist who will help them sell their snake oil.

    All while they have the same or larger carbon footprint than us average Joe's. They are no more willing to give up the modern conveniences of everyday life than anyone else. That would take living off grid. Sure, they put their little garbage can of plastic bottles and a stack of newspapers by the curb. But have no idea as to what goes into making those products in the first place. Well, they probably know, but don't REALLY care because it makes their life easier. They just want the rest of us to live a little less conveniently while they rake in the $.  

    I also agree 100% with your post!
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,056 Senior Member
    I decided to go with some green packaging for my daughter's cookie business and my food truck. They are all biodegradable plastics derived from corn and sugar cane. My main ride is a little Chevy Aveo. My houses are all well insulated, have 95% efficiency or higher furnaces in them and a couple have 98% efficient tankless water heaters that run on relatively clean natural gas. My camp in northern Michigan is completely off grid and runs mostly on solar. I will be building my distillery with solar panels. All my lights are LED.

    Know why? I am cheap. I really do appreciate the work these hippies have been doing to save the planet. Keep it coming and when the tech is ready enough to where I save money by adopting it, I will be all over it. If they want to save the planet, they need to stop preaching, and keep inventing and innovating-- that is the way it is going to work. Get us some good tech that is affordable, and the market will embrace it.

    A Tesla pickup that is a torque monster? I am listening....
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,594 Senior Member
    edited July 2018 #101
    At least 20% of all oil produced is used in other products, not fuels (everything from plastics to medication).  Not all fuels are burned equally.  I hate bullet point presentations without substance...

    BTW you’ll be happy to know both my wife and my car rate 8 out of 10 (10 being best) on the scale for greenhouse emissions at the tailpipe according to fuel economy.gov.  How does your car rate?????
    I ride an electric train with a few hundred other people for 90% of my transportation needs. 
    Got any efficiency numbers for that?  The electric trains in New York are filthy power hogs.  I work from home and telecommute.  A tank of gas in my highly efficient car can last me a month.  We now do just about all our shopping except for perishables off Amazon and clothing off other online sites.  

    So how about your car?  Airline travel? 

    Yes I’m the one leaving the planet worst off...
    Depending on how you calculate it it's about half to 1/3 the emissions of the average car. That's for the average passenger. However since the system exists and is going to run regardless of if I'm on it or not, my incremental emissions are zero.

    But yes I still drive to the range and go on camping trips and travel by air on occasion. The biggest contribution I have made is in choosing not to procreate. Every child you have multiplies your impact. Yes we need another generation of people, but nothing says it needs to be as large as the current one. Slowing population growth through the widespread global availability of birth control is probably the biggest thing we can possibly do to change the trajectory.

    The equation is actually simple. People x per capita emissions. If you address one without the other you don't get anywhere. For the past 200+ years both have been growing exponentially. As someone who I know knows a bit about how exponential functions work, you understand the impact they can have over long time-frames. This process has produced a lot of good over the years, but also presents a lot of risks long term.

    Another common organism that exhibits exponential growth is yeast. When making beer yeast will multiply exponentially until one of two conditions are met. They consume all the available sugars and die, or they produce so much ethanol that the system becomes toxic and they die. We'd like to think we're smarter than yeast in a fermenter, but this far we haven't done a great job of demonstrating it. Short of figuring out a way to colonize other planets we're stuck in a finite system. There are is a finite amount of stored energy within the system that cannot ever be replaced (we are currently burning through about a million years of stored fossil fuels a year) and a roughly constant flow of energy from the sun. 

    For the first 200k years **** sapiens like all other species survived only on the energy they could harvest through natural systems from the sun. Eventually and a lot sooner than most people anticipate (those pesky exponential functions again) we're going to have to get back to that. Luckily we now have more technologies available to us to harvest the few truly renewable sources. 

    The other side of the coin, much like the yeast is waste question. Again we live on a finite planet and are producing exponentially increasing waste stream, one of which is ghg emissions which impact the heat balance of the planet. 

    Again like the yeast in the fermenter nature has ways of balancing things out (drought, famine, disease, war), but it's rarely pleasant for the species being balanced. I'd very much prefer for humans to not have to go through that process. 

    I believe we are capable of making a smooth transition back to a sustainable way of life without having to return to the dark ages. That we can avoid both a massive crash due to resource depletion and at least most of the worst consequences of continued unchecked pollution. But with exponential growth the challenge becomes harder every year we procrastinate. We are actually already making a lot of good progress despite virtually no leadership and in many cases active opposition by goverment, but we've also got a long long way to go.

    PS this exact issue manifests itself in many other ways that are not insignificant. Fresh water sources, poorly managed fisheries, agriculture etc. Luckily we have smart scientists looking at all these issues and more and trying to anticipate problems before they become disasters and develop solutions that allow society to continue to function at a high level in most cases. One big challenge for later in the century will be fertilizer. Phosphorous is essential for modern farming and it's also a non-renewable resource with only a handful of known commercial mines in the world. Runnoff is also responsible for major eutrophication problems. We will need technologies that close the phosphorous cycle more than we already do. That said I'm hopeful that as this issue becomes more widely recognized we will develop the solutions required to prevent it from becoming a global disaster.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • MichakavMichakav Senior Member Posts: 2,413 Senior Member
    I decided to go with some green packaging for my daughter's cookie business and my food truck. They are all biodegradable plastics derived from corn and sugar cane. My main ride is a little Chevy Aveo. My houses are all well insulated, have 95% efficiency or higher furnaces in them and a couple have 98% efficient tankless water heaters that run on relatively clean natural gas. My camp in northern Michigan is completely off grid and runs mostly on solar. I will be building my distillery with solar panels. All my lights are LED.

    Know why? I am cheap. I really do appreciate the work these hippies have been doing to save the planet. Keep it coming and when the tech is ready enough to where I save money by adopting it, I will be all over it. If they want to save the planet, they need to stop preaching, and keep inventing and innovating-- that is the way it is going to work. Get us some good tech that is affordable, and the market will embrace it.

    A Tesla pickup that is a torque monster? I am listening....

    Amen to the bold. Your also doing much more than most of the preachers. Kudo's to you!
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,056 Senior Member
    These are actually pretty cool. They use plant based plastics plus they are the same price or cheaper than the regular stuff. Plus it is good marketing when you are trying to squeeze an extra buck or two out of hipsters.

  • FFLshooterFFLshooter Member Posts: 932 Senior Member
    Y’all should research how long that life could sustain for if the Sun were to stop burning tomorrow. You’d be surprised. Even if we are ruining the Earth, our kids grandkids, kids probably wouldn’t even be affected. Who cares.
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,594 Senior Member
    Oh and that electric train system exists (and it’s disinginous to zero it because it’s running anyway) because the government that you love uses our tax dollars propping up a system of assisted living for union guys driving 1800’s technology.  The free market would have killed those years ago and there would have been an earlier incentive to develop self-driven fully automated pods that would transport folks way more efficiently than those old ass trains you praise.
    You'd be surprised at the massive positive economic externalities effective subway systems generate. The cost of homes and condos within a mile of a metro station are significantly higher. A 2 br condo within half a mile of a metro station anywhere in the DC metro will fetch 700-800k. The same condo a fee miles from a metro will be maybe $500k if that. That doesn't even factor in all the exonimec development and tax revenues are generated. 

    A quick search found one study that said that while only 4% of all land was within 1/2 mile of a station 28% of all property value was in that area. I'm not going to dig for more detailed numbers but it's safe to say when you factor in increased property values effective public transit systems pay for themselves many times over from their positive externalities. 

    Btw lots of research on how municipalities can better capitalize on such things when developing new infrastructure. 
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,064 Senior Member
    edited July 2018 #106
    You'd be surprised at the massive positive economic externalities effective subway systems generate. The cost of homes and condos within a mile of a metro station are significantly higher. A 2 br condo within half a mile of a metro station anywhere in the DC metro will fetch 700-800k. The same condo a fee miles from a metro will be maybe $500k if that. That doesn't even factor in all the exonimec development and tax revenues are generated. 



    Btw lots of research on how municipalities can better capitalize on such things when developing new infrastructure. 
    I'm not in a position to know what the actual benefit of increased property values is, but I do know that most rail systems need hundreds of millions of dollars to prop up their financial capability. They never charge a fare that represents the actual cost of operation, so they all lose money. It seems to me that middle-class working taxpayers are the ones that end up making real estate profits for the people that can afford those 700K to 800K condos. I don't see the real value of public transit except for small groups of people......nearby small businesses, riders and the people with the expensive condos. Everyone else is subsidizing it. In nearby Orlando we have a relatively new commuter rail. I know for a fact that ridership is about a third of what they need to sustain profitability, even with the subsidies. It was called a useless boondoggle by most conservatives in this area 5 or 6 years ago before it was completed, and still is in my opinion. Now they are talking about running a bullet train from Tampa to Orlando and Orlando to Miami. I have no idea what ridership would be, but I might take the train once to see what it's like to ride in it, but I don't commute anywhere and I only might take the train to Miami for a lark once. I just don't think these things can be profitable without govt. subsidies.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,064 Senior Member
    Y’all should research how long that life could sustain for if the Sun were to stop burning tomorrow. You’d be surprised. Even if we are ruining the Earth, our kids grandkids, kids probably wouldn’t even be affected. Who cares.
    Without actually researching, a very short period in my opinion. All plants would die without light from the sun. The earths surface would probably freeze solid in a matter of days, give or take, and humans shortly after.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 3,290 Senior Member
    Transit is either mass or singular. Singular equals congestion resulting in extreme life quality degradation. I've seen it, close up and personal. Mass is supposed relieve the congestion. Whether it does or not can be debated, but if it does, the benefits are universal for all. Everyone has a vested interest in efficient infrastructure. Its needed desperately. The question left is shall it be for the common welfare or for profit or maybe both?
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,056 Senior Member
    edited July 2018 #109
    My green recycling operation. We crush up the old sidewalks to use as a base for the new ones. It saves us from having to use sand. Do you know why? Because I am cheap. Yay Earth!
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,056 Senior Member
    Nothing more needs to be said about this photo.
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 10,732 Senior Member
    Nothing more needs to be said about this photo.
    Do your knuckles drag on the ground if you hang your arm out the window. Your big enough to Fred Flintstone that go-cart :smiley:
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • MichakavMichakav Senior Member Posts: 2,413 Senior Member
    edited July 2018 #112
    cpj said:
    I with Alpha on reducing the population.  Too damn many people in the world.  I’d say most folks these days are not like the Duggar family, and don’t have many kids. Side note, someone should tell Mrs Duggar that it’s a vagina, not a clown car. 

    Wasn't his idea, it was Mike suggesting the best way to achieve Alpha's goal.

    Not sure why Alpha has ignored my questions (and others) about his usage though? I guess they just don't suit his narrative. I have all of the links saved for my percentages, all by his style of sites.


  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,056 Senior Member
    Ban alcohol again. The birth rate would plummet.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,056 Senior Member
    CHIRO1989 said:
    Do your knuckles drag on the ground if you hang your arm out the window. Your big enough to Fred Flintstone that go-cart :smiley:
    I was looking for a half way cheap used car to run around in. There was this Saturn... my head hit the ceiling unless I leaned the seat way back-- and I tend to sit more upright than most people. I got into that car, my head cleared, I had plenty of leg room...SOLD!!! I love that little car.
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 10,732 Senior Member
    CHIRO1989 said:
    Do your knuckles drag on the ground if you hang your arm out the window. Your big enough to Fred Flintstone that go-cart :smiley:
    I was looking for a half way cheap used car to run around in. There was this Saturn... my head hit the ceiling unless I leaned the seat way back-- and I tend to sit more upright than most people. I got into that car, my head cleared, I had plenty of leg room...SOLD!!! I love that little car.
    Ha! My BIL is 6'4" and tortured himself with a Saturn for several years. I drove some Hyundai when I was in St. Louis a couple weeks ago and I fit ok in that, but i am only 6', sucks sitting that low though, I like my trucks.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,831 Senior Member
    Y’all should research how long that life could sustain for if the Sun were to stop burning tomorrow. You’d be surprised. Even if we are ruining the Earth, our kids grandkids, kids probably wouldn’t even be affected. Who cares.
    Without actually researching, a very short period in my opinion. All plants would die without light from the sun. The earths surface would probably freeze solid in a matter of days, give or take, and humans shortly after.
    Internal heat inside the Earth generated from tidal forces of Sun and Moon, and the big honkin' nuclear reactor underground would slow down the freeze a little, but the Earth would freeze over solid. It has before and nobody was around to see it. Sorta drastic climate change. Photosynthesis would cease for sure, and all surface plants would die before the freeze, though. Stuff in the ocean that gets their food and energy from the 'black smoker' mini mineral volcanoes would live a good while longer, until they got too cold and died.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,056 Senior Member
    Dude... you can whip in and out of traffic. The car is nice and light so that 1.6 liter engine is actually pretty peppy. You can get into all the close parking spots. Trying to park that big Duramax in downtown Detroit was a chore. Not with this car. Oh... and did I say it was cheap? I laugh my ass off every time I fill up the tank with $20. It didn't cost much at the dealer either and maintaining it is much cheaper than the Duramax. It has like 10 air bags so if I do wreck it, it is pretty safe. Part of why I bought it was for my kids to drive around.

    First thing when I bought it, I put a trailer hitch on it as well. Not something I would drive to Tennessee with, but for picking up a few things here and there it works pretty well.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,831 Senior Member
    With people crammed in cities like sardines in a can, we're one world pandemic away from a major population adjustment. The Spanish Flu is a good example of that in recent times(1918-1920). It infected 500 million people (about 1/3 of world population at the time)  and killed somewhere between 50 million to 100 million. The U.S., Russia (old U.S.S.R.), and China, among others, did a LOT of germ warfare experimentation during the last century. They aren't 'supposed to have' that stuff now, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it. If one or more of those super bugs got loose, it wouldn't be good for the human race.

    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 10,732 Senior Member
    edited July 2018 #119
    Dude... you can whip in and out of traffic. The car is nice and light so that 1.6 liter engine is actually pretty peppy. You can get into all the close parking spots. Trying to park that big Duramax in downtown Detroit was a chore. Not with this car. Oh... and did I say it was cheap? I laugh my ass off every time I fill up the tank with $20. It didn't cost much at the dealer either and maintaining it is much cheaper than the Duramax. It has like 10 air bags so if I do wreck it, it is pretty safe. Part of why I bought it was for my kids to drive around.

    First thing when I bought it, I put a trailer hitch on it as well. Not something I would drive to Tennessee with, but for picking up a few things here and there it works pretty well.
    I had a good run of Mazdas, a B2000, a 323, and a 626, I have enjoyed stick shifts and high revving 4 bangers in the past. I have 6 people in my family, pretty sure all the boys will be north of 6',  I need people haulers and some trunk/box space, I am not getting a van, but, I have a couple more kids geting their DL's soon, I will keep this car in mind. 
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,056 Senior Member
    My brother has a Chevy Sprint, which is the smallest GM car out there (the Aveo-- now called the Spark is the 2nd smallest) and my big butt fits in there pretty good too. He bought his new and got the stick shift. He gets 40mpg most of the time.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,554 Senior Member
    edited July 2018 #121
    .
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.