Forums    Misc. and Other Stuff    Global waming or climate change?
Go to...
Start A New Topic
Search
Notify
Tools
Reply To This Topic
  
Global waming or climate change?
 Login now/Join our community
 
Supporting Member of Barthmobile.com 8/16
Picture of Kevin
posted
This topic deserves a new thread. I chose "Miscellaneous and other STUFF," so each member can express a view.


quote:
Originally posted by Steve VW:
You need to do more research. Sulfur, (and CFC's) are not potent greenhouse gases and have little to do with global warming. Sulfur oxides are the #1 cause of ACID RAIN, which has killed millions of trees and plant life all over the world. Take a look at Sudbury, Ontario where the nickel refineries made the land look like the moon. Bad in China, too. 90% of sulfur emissions are MAN MADE from coal combustion (number one source of airborne mercury, too.) This is not conjecture it is REAL damage.

CFC's are entirely MAN MADE and are potent catalytic killers of ozone in the stratosphere. Ozone helps block harmful UV rays from reaching us at the surface. Jury is out on the actual damage but we are 100% responsible for these compound emissions. Not a warming issue, though.

GOOD NEWS: We have accepted that we are the major players in these cycles and ALL countries are striving to reduce/ban their release.

GLOBAL WARMING IS A FACT. Of course it is, we here in the Midwest were a mile deep in ice 50,000 yrs ago! Obviously it has warmed since then. The question is all about the RATE and WHO is affecting it.

The RATE of temperature rising has risen drastically since the 1700's when the industrial revolution started, the same time humans began burning million year old sequestered carbon and releasing it back into the air, FACT. Since carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas, it is considered a contributing factor in global heat balance. Coal is over 95% carbon, it is the worst of the fossil fuels. (The rest is sulfur, at least hydrocarbons have some hydrogen along with the carbon.)

It is estimated that humans produce about 10% of the world's carbon dioxide. Here lies the controversy, is only 10% enough to cause global imbalance/change? No proof yet. There are several other normal greenhouse gases like methane at play as well.

Apparently, because no one can "prove" we caused harm, some feel comfortable continuing the emissions. Reminds of the "science" presented for years by the tobacco companies...

I believe that we have 3 strong arguments against coal (CO2, sulfur and strip mining) I also believe that ALL industries should be responsible for their impact in every way: soil, water and air. Why take a chance when you can do it right? Just like Mom said: scrub it out, clean up your mess, leave it like you found it.

We can do better than risk our children's world to save a few pennies on fuel, especially when the pennies go to fat cat energy magnates who tell us what we should do, science be damned. Trash the rivers, strip mine the land, pollute the air and make a buck...

In all things, reason and moderation should prevail. So ends the rant.



Please do not end your conversation Steve VW., I do not consider this rant. I have another question though.

Environmental Protection Agency, has tried to ban "Outdoor Wood Furnaces" from usage. hmm Wood is solar energy, because sun is needed to produce wood? hmm Wood rotting in the forest produces typically the same "carbon footprint" as burning when it is returned to nature by rotting in the forest? hmm If this is true, why is a Wood Burning Fireplace or Furnace considered a major polluter? hmm
 
Posts: 2564 | Location: Northeast , Ohio | Member Since: 07-29-2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Supporting Member of Barthmobile.com 7/17
Picture of Steve VW
posted Hide Post
You are correct as far as carbon goes. Burning any non fossil fuel returns no ancient sequestered carbon to the atmosphere. The argument against modern wood stoves which have catalytic converters is especially weak.

Poorly managed combustion in any reactor will be sooty at best, often with carbon monoxide as well as carbon dioxide. These could be the argument for regulation. (Some people are still burning coal in home stoves, this would contribute to the sulfur problem.)

IMHO wood stoves are a drop in the bucket as for their total contibution to pollution. The regulations are more the result of politics, ie it is easier to regulate fringe operators than to take on the well financed giant operators with their lawyers, lobbyists and "scientists" to stall the regulations.

Many of the pollution issues have been distorted and ignored by the polluters in favor of making a quick buck.

If we follow the latest political argument we hear how the cost of these horrible attempts at reduction are destroying our industries...

Ok, so if we bail out of the Paris thing, then costs should go down? Do you really think we'll see lower fuel prices? More coal jobs? Yeah, right... but "energy stock" dividends will go up, bank on that.

Even our own energy industries now support the Paris accord. (Now that they were forced to spend the cleanup money, it would be a waste to abandon their investments in clean technology, even they agree.)

The US is still a major polluter, with many sins from the past, but we have been making great progress. Why go from a world leader to a no-show?

We can do better... hmm


8607-3346-33TFPOB------9708-M0037-37MM-01
86 Regal SE 33 Tag axle--"98" Monarch 37
Chev P3(7) 454TBI--------Cummins 8.3 300 hp
400 hp fuel injected-------6 spd Allison, Spartan MM
 
Posts: 3217 | Location: Kalkaska, MI | Member Since: 02-04-2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Supporting Member of Barthmobile.com 12/10
Picture of ccctimtation
posted Hide Post
Only players get a seat at the table, take your chips off, go home or watch from the side lines. Decay is not a direct path from carbon based to carbon, just ask the mushrooms, carrion beetles and many other life forms.


I was taught to respect my elders but it is getting harder to find them!
 
Posts: 726 | Location: St. Charles, MO, USA | Member Since: 10-09-2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Supporting Member of Barthmobile.com 8/16
Picture of Kevin
posted Hide Post
Tim, I knew this was going to be interesting. It appears, as wood returns to earth to make more plant life and wood. I did ask a Mushroom but the Mushroom left me in the DARK. hmm
 
Posts: 2564 | Location: Northeast , Ohio | Member Since: 07-29-2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Supporting Member of Barthmobile.com 12/10
Picture of ccctimtation
posted Hide Post
Ask Alice, try the other side.


I was taught to respect my elders but it is getting harder to find them!
 
Posts: 726 | Location: St. Charles, MO, USA | Member Since: 10-09-2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Supporting Member of Barthmobile.com 3/09
Picture of Dave R
posted Hide Post
Before they took the sulfur out of my diesel I got on average 4 mpg more, I think it has to do with tax revenue more than climate change. Because if volcanoes could be taxed they would make them cut down on their sulfur emissions, just think how much money they could have made off Mt.St. Helens ?


Three Times A Charm
88 30' Regal John Deere
Hot Rod Lincoln
511 Cubic Inches
8712-3499-30J-A
 
Posts: 219 | Location: Long Island, N.Y. | Member Since: 03-04-2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Supporting Member of Barthmobile.com 8/16
Picture of Kevin
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Dave R:
Before they took the sulfur out of my diesel I got on average 4 mpg more, I think it has to do with tax revenue more than climate change. Because if volcanoes could be taxed they would make them cut down on their sulfur emissions, just think how much money they could have made off Mt.St. Helens ?

As a matter of fact Dave the old 6.9 did better on Miles Per Gallon Way back when it was nearly new. Good Point!
 
Posts: 2564 | Location: Northeast , Ohio | Member Since: 07-29-2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Supporting Member of Barthmobile.com 8/16
Picture of Kevin
posted Hide Post
Just was thinking Click I use more fossil fuel to go less distance and you pointed out Mike. Thumbs Down What makes burning more fuel to go less distance environmentally friendly? head bang Same goes for ethanol? Thumbs Down I call ethanol the filler fuel. You only get 85% to 90% actual fuel with every gallon.
 
Posts: 2564 | Location: Northeast , Ohio | Member Since: 07-29-2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Supporting Member of Barthmobile.com 7/17
Picture of Steve VW
posted Hide Post
Alcohol is a political fiasco. 10% will lower your mileage by 10%. In the 86 I put 75 gallons of real gas in N Dakota. Mileage was exactly 10% better. So I can drive exactly as far with 9 gallons of gas as 10 gallons of gasahol. Use 9 gallons of gas either way.
Without taxpayer subsidies it is a financial loser too. The farmers get more for their corn but that raises price of beef and tortillas....
 
Posts: 3217 | Location: Kalkaska, MI | Member Since: 02-04-2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Supporting Member of Barthmobile.com 10/08
Picture of MWrench
posted Hide Post
What is not publicized is that there is more pollution produced in the process of growing and making corn alcohol AND the efficiency drop when using gaslhol!


Ed
94 30' Breakaway #3864
30-BS-6B side entry
230 Cummins, Allison 6 speed
Spartan chassis
K9DVC
 
Posts: 1893 | Location: Los Gatos, CA | Member Since: 12-08-2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Supporting Member of Barthmobile.com 10/08
Picture of MWrench
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Dave R:
Before they took the sulfur out of my diesel I got on average 4 mpg more,


After driving 200,000 miles in the Breakaway, and thru the sulfur deletion, I have noticed very little change in MPG, maybe a 0.1 or so but nothing dramatic. I drive hard and fast, do exact refills and keep very accurate records. 10.12 MPG average over the entire 200,000 that I have driven it. 271,738 on the clock now


Ed
94 30' Breakaway #3864
30-BS-6B side entry
230 Cummins, Allison 6 speed
Spartan chassis
K9DVC
 
Posts: 1893 | Location: Los Gatos, CA | Member Since: 12-08-2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Supporting Member of Barthmobile.com 2/16
Captain Doom
Picture of Rusty
posted Hide Post
Let's keep this topic unlocked - by sticking to science and not politics... nono


Rusty


MilSpec AMG 6.5L TD 230HP; built-to-order by Peninsular Engines:  Hi-pop injectors, gear-driven camshaft, non-waste-gated, high-output turbo, 18:1 pistons.  Fuel economy increased by 15-20%, power, WOW!"StaRV II"

'94 28' Breakaway: MilSpec AMG 6.5L TD 230HP

Nelson and Chester, not-spoiled Golden Retrievers

Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and sometimes I think we're not.
In either case the idea is quite staggering.
- Arthur C. Clarke

It was a woman who drove me to drink, and I've been searching thirty years to find her and thank her - W. C. Fields
 
Posts: 8200 | Location: Brooker, FL, USA | Member Since: 09-08-2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Picture of hemi354az (FMC #120)
posted Hide Post
My apology to you all. I removed my comment.
Lou FMC #120
 
Posts: 39 | Location: Shopsdale, Aridzona | Member Since: 09-07-2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Supporting Member of Barthmobile.com 8/16
Picture of Kevin
posted Hide Post
Hemi, I did not consider your comment all that political. Most things we encounter get linked to politics. In the end time changes all things. No matter if we call it Global Warming, or Climate Change life goes on to change things.
I do hope this website does not change even if the climate does warm change. java Big Grin
 
Posts: 2564 | Location: Northeast , Ohio | Member Since: 07-29-2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

    Forums    Misc. and Other Stuff    Global waming or climate change?

This website is dedicated to the Barth Custom Coach, their owners and those who admire this American made, quality crafted, motor coach.
We are committed to the history, preservation and restoration of the Barth Custom Coach.