Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

This is such excellent news, a big victory and a sensible decision from the US Supreme Court.

Call me cynical, but my guess is that real progress on the global warming issue will have to wait until the current occupant of the White House (together with his malevolent VP) is replaced.

I was hoping to see some words from ya on this:)

Pascal and Bernoulli had it right long ago Didn't they?

That's the order of things, you prescribe a solution first and then work towards putting it in practice.

Commutes are longer because the cities are larger now. Try to convince those living in the US to use the train or bus to go to work or travel. They will laugh at you.

Don't worry about the White house, you are in Canada

What's next?! A tax on barbecuing?!

:)

Oh, yeah, they already have a tax on barbecuing...

My bad...

Wonder what other freedoms they can tax...

Belgium to impose tax on barbequing to fight global warming

This is a good start� But the response from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers is not impressing at all! They will need to work harder at finding new solutions� of course Alternative Fuel, hybrids, diesel and ethanol-capable vehicles and new technologies like variable valve timing, continuously variable transmissions, and cylinder deactivation will help. But I think they need to make it attractive to the general public by making all of this affordable and also gradually make the population switch their big 4x4 monster truck (they use to cross a bridge or get stuck in traffic with!) to smaller vehicles. For example, in Canada, the government give you a $1000.00 if you buy a hybrid vehicle or a low gas consumption vehicle! Or you have to pay up to $2000.00 as a special tax (which goes into a CO2 reduction plan) if you buy a high consumption vehicle.

There are tons of possible actions that can be taken by the politicians and leaders, but so far it seems that the money feed back from the petroleum industries have corrupted a lot of good will!

Hopefully this is the start for a real change ?

Ban the Bulb?

"In a few weeks the US Congress is likely to vote to phase out the standard incandescent lightbulb within a decade. The frantic race to see who can best appease the global warming alarmists will claim another victim, the friendly glow of the direct descendant of Thomas Edison's filament-based light bulb."

"Try to convince those living in the US to use the train or bus to go to work or travel. They will laugh at you."

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Daily ridership 1,586,850 (Weekdays) as of October 2006
Detailed statistics for May 2006 including the weekends

"... another victim, the friendly glow of the direct descendant of Thomas Edison's filament-based light bulb."

:^( Sniff ... and then our only choice would be to save money using those upstart CFL's.

ENERGY STAR qualified CFLs:
* Use at least 2/3 less energy than standard incandescent bulbs to provide the same amount of light, and last up to 10 times longer.
* Save $30 or more in energy costs over each bulb�s lifetime
* Generate 70 percent less heat, so they�re safer to operate and can cut energy costs associated with home cooling.
Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs : ENERGY STAR

Back in the early 80's I had a Honda Civic Wagon that got 42-45 mpg. I also had a Vega - I think that was built by Chevy, that got 30-35 mpg.

Vehicles have NOT gotten more fuel efficient.

Yeah, no action by the current EPA (Environment? Prohibit Action). Once a new administration comes in, then we might actually see something done. Hopefully, it won't be too late.

"Try to convince those living in the US to use the train or bus to go to work or travel. They will laugh at you."

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Daily ridership 1,586,850 (Weekdays) as of October 2006

and this is DESPITE the fact that our system is much worse than that in most other countries. If it were actually developed properly, and not squelched by various forces, it would be used even more.

What another terrific ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court by defacto has just declared every living and breathing human to be a polluting entity.

The mere fact that humans inhale oxygen and exhale CO2, this ruling would empower the EPA to regulate when, where, how much, and how long human beings can breath!!! Yeah, I know some of you out there will say that could never happen, but think about it!!!

LowerCal,

The point is that the government (under the guise of global warming) is trying to take away your freedom of choice. Soon you won't even have a choice...

We can clearly see the form of your shadow GetReal & NewtownPa �

I keep getting your comment is awaiting moderation. Isn't that a new word for censorship?

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

April 3rd, 2007 at 11:03 am
Surely someone here would like to comment on the Tunnel idea?? How about Michael Oppenheimer??

Cyclone, You have a mind fixation about your tunnel, which we know from Dr Masters Blog�
We know you worked hard on this and can argue for a long time!

Yes! Once I had it figured out then there was no stopping me Pascal and Bernoulli showed me the way! Without reading up on them I would never have thought of the idea!!

Get Real, perhaps you should follow your name.

EPA could not regulate breath, and even if they could, they would not. All the CO2 in your breath came (directly or indirectly) from plants, which took CO2 from the atmosphere. Breathing is carbon-neutral. The only thing that increases CO2 in the atmosphere is releasing carbon that was previously stored, like fossil fuels.

The thing about it is, the Clean Air Act, as we know it, is not well suited to the issue of greenhouse gases. It was designed to reduce smog and other pollutants with short-term, well-defined effects on human health and the environment. It won't work well on greenhouses gases.

What is really needed is for Congress to create a new law regulating these gases. Trying to do it under the Clean Air Act will be almost impossible and result in many, many more court cases.

Hopefully, NOX and SOX will be next! From there the heavy metals to follow!

Darned right NewtownPA, Americans like yourself should fight to the end to retain their presumed right to be gluttonous, wasteful, inefficient and stupidly behind the times.

The rest of the world will happily develop and keep the technologies and jobs of the future, while Americans (led by the likes of yourself and GetReal) work themselves into a lather about their "rights and freedoms". Never mind that the current US admin has done more to undermine real human rights than any other in living memory..

snowboy,


It's not so hard once you figure it out - you don't have to change your lifestyle, you just have to convince someone else to change theirs and then claim them as your "carbon-offset" and pay a fee to Gore's company to hook you up.


:)

100 g of C for BBQ!! A grain of sand in the Sahara.

let's listen to Al Gore crap, charge them $30. The will score during Memorial Day and 4 july.

NewtownPA, by gosh we actually agree on something! I also have no use for carbon off-sets.

Each us in our lives has any number of opportunities to reduce needless consumption and waste of energy and resources, and save money at the same time. The only way forward is for each of us to do what is reasonably possible in our own lives..

snowboy,

I'm not interested in arguing. Our votes determine where we stand. :)

Peace.

-Nathan

.

Let the most votes win (but be aware that I will do my best to influence those voters!). Peace back at ya from the Great White North.

Amazing how all these "free market" conservatives are very upset that someone like Gore could be (gasp) making money by providing a service. Imagine that!

Snowboy, if you wait for everyone to change their lifestyles, well, you'll be waiting a long time. Do you seriously expect people to go without air conditioning during the summer? Or stop driving? It's not a realistic solution.

Carbon offsets are based on a more realistic approach. It recognizes that people will not suddenly turn off their a/c, stop driving, and stop purchasing products (which require energy to produce and transport). Carbon offsets are critical to developing the technology and infrastructure needed to reduce GHG emissions while allowing people to live modern lives.

rwdobson, I expect people to not behave like selfish boors but as if their actions mattered.

Homes can be better insulated, so they don't need as much heating and cooling. More fuel efficient cars can be purchased and cars can be driven more slowly, both resulting in considerable fuel savings. Car pooling makes sense. Stupid trips by car (to the corner store for a video or milk, when walking or cycling would help our health and help with overweight issues) could be reduced sharply. General mindless overconsumption (which is epidemic in the US, Canada and the EU) can be transformed into a wiser use of resources. Alternative (non-carbon based) energy sources are there for the developing.

In my country the citizenry are far ahead of the politicians, corporations and media on this. Why? Because we see changes in climate and ecosystems occurring, ever faster, and we know in our guts that if we go on the way we have it will end badly.

Carbon offsets are ripe for abuse - there will be lots of money made by lawyers and middle men, but little action taken as a result. And it will be a field day for a variety of white collar swindlers..

There is a different perspective on global warming - one which does not place all the blame on humans.

One perspective is that global warming always preceeds an ice age.

Humans put 3% of the CO2 in the Air

Humans are said to put 3% of the CO2 in the air, while the rest of the CO2 is due mostly to biological decay. The hypothetical problem is that humans might double their production of CO2. Doubling would mean adding 3% to whatever CO2 does. A 3% increase in what CO2 does would mean increasing the 0.13�C by another 0.004�C. This is how much heating of the atmosphere humans would do by doubling their production of CO2�0.004�C.

More info here:
http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html

And here:
http://www.nov55.com/crunch.html

And here:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html



We are all free people and can believe what we want - there is more than one interpretation/perspective to this global warming issue. :)

Your tunnel idea is ridiculous!

Canadians stop killing baby seals.

NewtonPA, I have been mentioning this for ages.

I aggree.

There is really a lot of "waste" from us humans. We *can* live more efficiently. However we should be free to waste if we choose to. Ever go to a restaurant and leave food on your plate? :)

People are snobs. Millions walk miles with buckets of water on their heads. You guys leave the tap open shaving and brushing your teeth every day.

crucilandia,

You've got the right idea!

One time I used a small cup with cold water to shave. Just one cup of water.

...I was camping. :)

"Alternative (non-carbon based) energy sources are there for the developing."

exactly. and one of the ways to encourage and speed along this development is through carbon offsets. people carpooling and adding insulation helps, but it doesn't really address the long-term issues.

"plants that are most responsible for the recycling of the CO2"
They don't. They store it, remove from the system. Trees store C in the structure, phytoplankton in biomass.

If they recycle it does not to change anything.

Whay we add is insignificant. So it does not change the closed system. The additional CO2 does not account for the changes we are seeing

DeSkipper,

I'm being fecious here (and a little kidding around), but isn't the problem really that too many sperm have met too many eggs?

Anyone want to volunteer to be culled?

rwdobson,

Could you explain what you think "carbon-offsets" are?

I understand that on one end you have a customer who goes to Al Gore's Carbon Offset store (or one similar) with cash and they receive a certificate.

What is on the other end?


...


Ok I know.... it's a bunch of people planting trees....


... what trees? what country? where? who is doing this tree planting? how many years and trees will it take? what else are they doing to "offset" the carbon?

Yes, overpopulation is the root of many environmental problems. Resources are finite. We don't need to cull anyone, but perhaps we could work on slowing down the sperms-meeting-eggs some.

go to .Chicago Climate Exchange and see what they have to say.

it's not just planting trees. offsets are generated from destruction of methane (since it has a higher global warming effect than CO2), sequestration of carbon in soil, production of renewable energy, and energy efficiency projects

rwdobson,

Thanks for the link and info.

I guess my problem is that it's just assumed that global warming is caused by CO2, and we are the cause of CO2, thus we need more governmental control. (Where you have global warming, you have politics.)

What if: global warming is caused by gigantic cyclic ice-ages that occur naturally and regularly and we HUMANS are powerless to affect it one way or the other?

Case in point:

*BP = Before Present

Good points, Newtown. I worry about those things too. But most of the things that would combat global warming also bring other benefits, and fossil energy is going to run out eventually, so I think it's worth making sensible efforts.

Dust storms fuel global warming on Mars! Same as on Earth except our dust storms are mostly particulates from the fossil fuels!!
Link