[N8 v2.0]

Rejoice!!!


Bush: Climate change is 'serious problem'
Jun 26 2:50 PM US/Eastern

US President George W. Bush said it was time to move past a debate over whether human activity is a significant factor behind global warming and into a discussion of possible remedies.

"I have said consistently that global warming is a serious problem. There's a debate over whether it's manmade or naturally caused," Bush told reporters.

"We ought to get beyond that debate and start implementing the technologies necessary to enable us to achieve a couple of big objectives: One, be good stewards of the environment; two, become less dependent on foreign sources of oil, for economic reasons as for national security reasons," he said.

Bush cited "clean-coal technology," efforts to develop automobiles powered by hydrogen or ethanol, and his push for the United States to develop significant new nuclear energy capabilities.

"The truth of the matter is, if this country wants to get rid of its greenhouse gases, we've got to have the nuclear power industry be vibrant and viable," he said.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I agree, but he has said all this before.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

"I have said consistently that global warming is a serious problem. There's a debate over whether it's manmade or naturally caused," Bush told reporters.

Ugh, there's no debate on it.

Besides that, the way that you remedy the situation is dependent on whether humans are contributing or not. Is he going to say, "Well, humans don't contribute to global warming, so we don't have to worry about car emissions."

I also find it funny that you posted this right after posting the other thread where the Bush admin is fighting increased standards on emissions. The actions are not matching the rhetoric.

 

[N8 v2.0]

This is sooooo true!!!

"The truth of the matter is, if this country wants to get rid of its greenhouse gases, we've got to have the nuclear power industry be vibrant and viable," he said.

 

[dhbuilder]

our leaders can say publicy whatever they want about any problem this country may be facing.

but when they walk away from the podium, the special interests lobbies take over and sway more political decisions than we could possibly know.

especially anything involving internal combustion.

coal, automobile co's. the oil and gas industry.
these groups and others have outlasted all administrations, and will still be in power many administrations down the line.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

our leaders can say publicy whatever they want about any problem this country may be facing.

but when they walk away from the podium, the special interests lobbies take over and sway more political decisions than we could possibly know.

especially anything involving internal combustion.

coal, automobile co's. the oil and gas industry.
these groups and others have outlasted all administrations, and will still be in power many administrations down the line.

For once I agree with you.

 

[Echo]

Must be some elections coming up or something.

 

[fluff]

Must be some electrons coming up or something.

That'll be the nucular option then.

 

[blue]

This is sooooo true!!!

I'm agreeing with N8 and GW...

*slashes wrists*

 

[N8 v2.0]

I'm agreeing with N8 and GW...

*slashes wrists*

My work here is done.

 

[jimmydean]

And his proposal for a fix is zero emissions coal. Man, I love that guy!

 

[Changleen]

The real question is if anything actually gets done. Moving America from the position of world's no.1 polluter is a big challenge. 2% of the population, 25% of the pollution, it's not a good look.

 

[N8 v2.0]

I am sure we are not the #1 polluter.

 

[jimmydean]

I am sure we are not the #1 polluter.

If we are not, we will be soon. And are you saying #1 in raw figures, or per capita? Based on Changleen's figure, that IS bad.

 

[cheeselad]

Some statistics to look at.

Carbon Dioxide per capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_pol_car_dio_per_cap-pollution-carbon-dioxide-per-capita

Municipal Waste per capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_pol_mun_was_per_cap-pollution-municipal-waste-per-capita

Nuclear Waste per capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_pol_nuc_was_per_cap-pollution-nuclear-waste-per-capita

Nitrogen Oxide per capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_pol_nit_oxi_per_cap-pollution-nitrogen-oxides-per-capita

 

[Changleen]

The USA drew worldwide criticism for failing to adopt the greatest international agreement for the reduction of some greenhouse gases, The Kyoto Protocol, which has been accepted by nearly every other country. This is despite the fact that the USA is by a massive margin the world's biggest polluter and very disproportionately so. President bush has repeatedly stated that he will not adopt such protocols if they harm American economy. Commercialism and greed overcome all common sense and thought for the welfare of future generations. This failure causes hatred not only of the Bush administration, but of American commercialism in general.

The Kyoto Protocol, the landmark treaty requiring cuts in gas emissions which cause global warming, is now in effect with the support of 141 nations but not of the world's biggest polluter the United States.

How do you guys NOT know this stuff?

 

[Changleen]

I am sure we are not the #1 polluter.

You're sure of a lot of things that are obviously wrong.

 

[ragin-sagin]

You're sure of a lot of things that are obviously wrong.

Ahhh so true...I love it.

 

[ohio]

I'm so sick of hydrogen. It's non-existent for the next 20 years minumum and it's questionable whether it solves anything. We could be driving electric vehicles right now.

F hybrids. F fuel cells. F bush.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2006/06/bush_flipflops_on_global_warmi.php

 

[N8 v2.0]

We could be driving electric vehicles right now.

F hybrids. F fuel cells. F bush.

Brilliant!!!

We'll simply displace oil pollution with lead acid batteries and coal fired power plants.

 

[N8 v2.0]

If we are not, we will be soon. And are you saying #1 in raw figures, or per capita? Based on Changleen's figure, that IS bad.

I'm looking at China as #1

 

[Changleen]

I'm looking at China as #1

China won't be no.1 till 2020 IF they continue increase at their 2000 rates. They probably won't if you listen to their government.

N8, this information is easily available on the internets. What's your frickin problem?

 

[ohio]

Brilliant!!!

We'll simply displace oil pollution with lead acid batteries and coal fired power plants.

Actually no. Initially we'll be utilizing off-peak capacity, eventually we'll be displacing petroleum into hydrocarbon based plants where they'll be converted to energy far more efficiently than in a car. We'd still be burning petroleum, but we would in this theoretical hydrogen economy also. In fact they're virtually identical, execpt for the mileage range and recharge time of the vehicles. But one exists right now, and the other exists only as a red herring.

 

[Changleen]

Actually no. Initially we'll be utilizing off-peak capacity, eventually we'll be displacing petroleum into hydrocarbon based plants where they'll be converted to energy far more efficiently than in a car. We'd still be burning petroleum, but we would in this theoretical hydrogen economy also. In fact they're virtually identical, execpt for the mileage range and recharge time of the vehicles. But one exists right now, and the other exists only as a red herring.

The Japanese Hydrogen model doesn't use oil other than as a source of plastic to make their stuff out of. The energy to split the H2 and O comes from renewable sources or nuclear. There's no reason for it not to.

Their little demonstrator prototype units (which run fans or little toy cars) just use regular AA batteries and a photvoltaic cell as the power source, and as an especially nice touch, keep the steam from the reaction contained and re-use it. They just have to top off the water level every now and then to compensate for the imperfect seals on the prototype. Pretty cool. Still even they admit it is a way off from being a commercial product.

 

[Changleen]

This isn't the one I've seen but it's similar, this one is actually a toy / science kit type of deally:

http://www.etech-japan.com/product/fuel_cell/Concept_car.html

Pretty cool.

 

[Changleen]

Also Mazda has two Hydrogen powered rotary engine RX-8s:

And a prototype hydrogen gas station to fill em with:

That's not the only hydrogen filling station in Japan either.

Mazda Motor Corporation received approval from government authorities for a filling station to store and supply fuel for ongoing hydrogen vehicle research and development. The new "Hydrogen Station" officially began operating in early February 2005 and is located near Mazda's global headquarters in Hiroshima. It is the first hydrogen filling station in the Chugoku region of western Japan.

he facility supplies fuel to both the hydrogen engine test facility and the hydrogen rotary vehicles currently under development and testing for commercial use. High-pressure hydrogen gas--supplied by an outside contractor--is stored at about 200 bar (20 MPa) in compressed hydrogen gas tanks and further pressurized to 350 bar (35 MPa) for delivery to vehicles. The inventory stored at Mazda's hydrogen filling station enables up to 10 vehicles per day to be fueled with hydrogen gas.

Permission from Japan's Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport (MLIT) came in October 2004 for the world's first public road tests of Mazda's RX-8 Hydrogen Rotary (known as H2RE)--a rotary-engine-powered, dual-fuel vehicle that runs on either hydrogen or traditional gasoline.

The hydrogen gas station allows Mazda to continue development of hydrogen rotary engines with the goal of selling hydrogen vehicles to public entities and corporations in Japan within two years. This unique filling station is another tangible step forward in Mazda's support for the development of a hydrogen-fueled society.

It's not such a pipe dream, it just needs real investment, which Japan seems to be serious about.

 

[noname]

BMW Hydrogen cars BMW has been working on it for a long time.

 

[noname]

Ugh, there's no debate on it.

Really? I have to disagree there. The debate isn't wether or not mankind has an effect on global warming, but wether or not we are the sole contributors to it.

BBC NEWS
Arctic's tropical past uncovered
By Rebecca Morelle
Science reporter, BBC News

Fifty-five million years ago the North Pole was an ice-free zone with tropical temperatures, according to research.

A sediment core excavated from 400m (1,300ft) below the seabed of the Arctic Ocean has enabled scientists to delve far back into the region's past.

An international team has been able to pin-point the changes that occurred as the Arctic transformed from this hot environment to its present cold status.

The findings are revealed in a trio of papers published in the journal Nature.

Unlocked secrets

Until now, our understanding of the Arctic's environmental history has been limited because of the difficulties in retrieving material from the harsh, ice-covered region.

But in 2004, the Arctic Coring Expedition (Acex) used ice-breaking ships and a floating drilling rig to remove 400m-long cylinders of sediment from the bottom of the ocean floor.

The cores were taken from the 1,500km-long (930 miles) Lomonosov Ridge, which stretches between Siberia and Greenland.

The core holds layer upon layer of compressed fossils and minerals, which when studied can tell the story of millions of years of Arctic history.

The bottom end of the cylinder helped scientists to uncover what had happened to the Arctic during a dramatic global event known as the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, which occurred about 55 million years ago.

"This time period is associated with a very enhanced greenhouse effect," explained Appy Sluijs, a palaeoecologist from Utrecht University in the Netherlands, and the lead author on one of the papers.

"Basically, it looks like the Earth released a gigantic fart of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere - and globally the Earth warmed by about 5C (9F).

"This event is already widely studied over the whole planet - but the one big exception was the Arctic Ocean."

The core revealed that before 55 million years ago, the surface waters of the Arctic Ocean were ice-free and as warm as 18C (64F).

But the sudden increase in greenhouse gases boosted them to a balmy 24C (75F) and the waters suddenly filled with a tropical algae, Apectodinium .

When current climate models were applied to this period of the Earth's history, said Dr Sluijs, they predicted North Pole temperatures to be about 15C (27F) lower than the core shows.

Blanket layers

The second of the three papers, led by paleaoecologist Henk Brinkhuis, also from Utrecht University, reports that the Arctic Ocean underwent another transformation about 50 million years ago.

The water changed from salty to fresh, and the ocean became covered with a thick layer of freshwater fern, called Azolla .

"We assume from climate models from the early Eocene Period that there was lots of fresh water coming into the basin via precipitation and giant Canadian and Siberian river run-offs," said Professor Brinkhuis.

"And, at a certain point, this gave rise to this whopping great growth of Azolla ."

He believes the prolific growth of this fern, may be linked to the later drops in temperature in the area.

"When you have so much of this plant in this giant sea, you have a mechanism to pump out carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It is sort of an anti-greenhouse effect," he said.

"We argue that this sits right on the break from the really warm hot house period into the time when the ice house begins."

Future predictions

Further up the core, the first evidence of ice formation emerges.

We anticipate that our data will be used by climate modellers to give us better information about how climate change occurs
Kate Moran, University of Rhode Island
"Five hundred thousand years above where the Azolla was found, we found the first drop stones," explained Professor Brinkhuis, who is also a co-author on the third paper which details Arctic ice-formation.

"These are little stones that come from icebergs, icesheets or sea ice. So it must have been cold enough to have ice.

"Before we did this, it was thought that the ice field in the Northern Hemisphere only began about three million years ago; but now we have pushed that back to 45 million years ago."

Although the data tells us how the world changed from one with greenhouse conditions to one with ice house conditions millions of years ago, it may also help scientists to predict what will result from the present changes in climate.

Appy Sluijs points out that the data reveals that some of the climate models used to detail the Arctic's history got things wrong; and, as they are the same models that predict our future climate, they may need adjusting.

Kate Moran, lead author of one the papers and professor of oceanography and ocean engineering at University of Rhode Island, agrees: "We anticipate that our data will be used by climate modellers to give us better information about how climate change occurs and possibly where global climate might be leading.

"Today's warming of the Arctic can, in all likelihood, be attributed to mankind's impact on the planet; but, as our data suggest, natural processes operating in the past have also resulted in a significant warming and cooling of the Arctic."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/5034026.stm

Published: 2006/05/31 17:21:38 GMT

News in Science - Cold weather makes better violins - 09/12/2003

[This is the print version of story http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1005713.htm]

Cold weather makes better violins
Heather Catchpole
ABC Science Online

Tuesday, 9 December 2003
violin
Stradivarius violins are made from dense wood grown during a mini ice age (Mark Inglis)
A mini ice age helped to make the world's most famous violins, say U.S. researchers.

They say that violins made by Stradivari and other Italian masters had a superior sound as they were made using high-density wood from trees that grew during the ice age.

Dr Lloyd Burckle of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University led the research, which was published in the journal Dendrochronologia.

The mini ice age occurred during the Maunder Minimum, a period between 1645 and 1715 of very cold weather in Western Europe associated with a reduction in the Sun's overall activity.

Rings from trees grown in the high altitude forests of the European Alps, which the violin makers used as a source of wood, showed that the climate was colder during this time. These climate conditions aren't found in this area today.

Trees grow slower in colder weather, producing denser wood for that season. So, narrower tree rings grow in cold weather than rings grown in warmer seasons.

"Narrow tree rings would not only strengthen the violin but would increase the wood's density," the researchers said. The change in climate therefore made a difference to the violins' tone and brilliance, they said.

Not everyone believes climate change can explain the quality of violins made by Stradivari and other masters living in the town of Cremona.

Secret ways of ageing the wood, special varnishes or using wood from historic structures are other theories.

Australian researcher Associate Professor Joe Wolfe from the acoustic lab at the University of New South Wales queried the U.S. results.

Wolfe said that although wood density was important, master violin makers would have accounted for that by changing the thickness of the base or belly of the violin. And he said no two violins were the same.

"Although the Cremonese masters are widely regarded to be very good, [the violins] are also very different than one another. It's possible for a modern copy to be more like a Stradivarius than another Stradivarius."

Other factors

Wolfe added that many other factors apart from wood density and thickness affected the quality of sound, such as loss of energy into the wood.

When a player draws a bow across the strings, most vibrations are "lost" in the wood. Only a small percent of the energy resonating to produce the characteristic sound of a violin, Wolfe said.

Wolfe has tested violin sounds when neither the researchers nor the person evaluating the sounds knew what type of violin was being played. He said the Stradivarius violins didn't do so well and the quality of modern violins was comparable to those of the old masters.

Most 17th century violins were modified in the 19th century to make them suit the louder sounds of the romantic music popular at the time. Wolfe said that few violins today sound how the Cremonese masters intended.

Wolfe added that another problem with attributing better sound quality to the violins was that the Stradivarius has become the standard against which other violins are judged.

"Almost by definition you can't make anything better than a Strad. If it were brighter they would say it is too bright, if it were warmer they would say it was too warm."

My contention isn't that we make no contribution to it, nor do I take a cavalier attitude towards global warming in general, I just try to present a more perspicacious approach.
There is ample evidence that the Earth has cyclic temparature swings that can at times be very drastic, and can last lifetimes.
The big problem with this issue is that people have no real scope of geologic history, they see history as it relates to human lifespans. The Earth endures without such peceptual burdens.
It is a given that the push for more enviromentally sesitive measures of living will continue to be persued, and there is no reason why we should not, even if it didn't matter on a global scale, people will still prefer generally cleaner, heathier means of living. It's been a trend of society for longer than anyone can remember.

 

[Changleen]

It is a given that the push for more enviromentally sesitive measures of living will continue to be persued, and there is no reason why we should not, even if it didn't matter on a global scale, people will still prefer generally cleaner, heathier means of living. It's been a trend of society for longer than anyone can remember.

Hopefully for most people this is a 'given' but it seems that an annoying large number of people still seem to think it's their god-given right to spunk oil and natural resources like there (will be) no tomorrow. Most of them call themselves 'republicans'.

 

[habitatxskate]

wooooooooh! hold the phone here a second, if they think car emissions are bad then why does he ride around in a heavy duty limo that is bullet proof which definately adds major weight and takes up more gas..couldn't he ride in an overweight hybrid, even though it does produce "smog"

 

[noname]

he should just ride his mountain bike everywhere.

 

[noname]

Hopefully for most people this is a 'given' but it seems that an annoying large number of people still seem to think it's their god-given right to spunk oil and natural resources like there (will be) no tomorrow. Most of them call themselves 'republicans'.

Odd, most of the mountain bikers I know are left leaning and drive SUVs. then again, everyone around here drives SUV's.

 

[ohio]

The Japanese Hydrogen model doesn't use oil other than as a source of plastic to make their stuff out of. The energy to split the H2 and O comes from renewable sources or nuclear. There's no reason for it not to.

That's not a hydrogen model it's an energy model. That could exist with hydrogen or electric vehicles.

I'm talking about changes that we can make tomorrow that will have an immediate effect. You can continue to pipe dream all you want about storing, distributing and stuffing vehicles full of a highly volatile liquid throughout a massive country with no existing infrastructure for it.

 

[Changleen]

Odd, most of the mountain bikers I know are left leaning and drive SUVs. then again, everyone around here drives SUV's.

I was kinda thinking on a somewhat largr scale than the car you drive, but you're right... However having huge engined cars is mostly an American thing. I think once everyone has such large cars that what a Euro or a Kiwi would consider 'large' and what a Yank would consider 'large' become very different.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Really? I have to disagree there. The debate isn't wether or not mankind has an effect on global warming, but wether or not we are the sole contributors to it.

No one disputes whether the Earth has natural cycles nor goes through warm and cold cycles. Obviously there are other contributing factors, which is all that your articles show (they don't matter for diddly in this conversation because they are moot). What Bush is arguing is that this current warm cycle is either not man-made or that we don't have anything to do with it. As I pointed out, it's a serious problem to take that approach, because it changes the steps you take to combat it. CO2 in the atmosphere correlates with higher temperatures. CO2 is now at record levels, and we are to blame for that. There is no debate over these points.

My contention isn't that we make no contribution to it, nor do I take a cavalier attitude towards global warming in general, I just try to present a more perspicacious approach.
There is ample evidence that the Earth has cyclic temparature swings that can at times be very drastic, and can last lifetimes.
The big problem with this issue is that people have no real scope of geologic history, they see history as it relates to human lifespans. The Earth endures without such peceptual burdens.
It is a given that the push for more enviromentally sesitive measures of living will continue to be persued, and there is no reason why we should not, even if it didn't matter on a global scale, people will still prefer generally cleaner, heathier means of living. It's been a trend of society for longer than anyone can remember.

So, your "perspicacious" approach is to just sit back and let the natural push for environmentally sensitive measures of living be pursued at the rate it has been? I'm sorry, but that is not enough. Our environmentally sensitive pursuits have wrought us gas guzzling cars that are well below the standards of just about every other industrialized nation in regards to pollution and MPG.

 

[Bicyclist]

One thing I've heard about Hydrogen cells is although they do burn cleanly, the act of actually harvesting the hydrogen produces a significant ammount of pollutants. Is that true? Again, I thought I heard that's why BMW discontinued their H powered car.

 

[rockwool]

It amazes me that in the U.S. there are hardly any diesel cars for sale. And that due to politics!
To my knowledge no Japanese or U.S. company sells them for your internal market.
The diesel engine is about 20-30% more efficient than a equivalent petrol engine who in return is 30% more efficient than a ethanol driven engine of the same output.
Your dependancy on foregin oil would decrese significantly if 50-70% of the people would drive diesel cars (common figures in central europe).
The emissions problem with the diesel are the particals it produces wich can greatly be solved by a particle filter now sold with many cars. In general the emissions are, as i remember the facts, better or equal to a petrol engine.

There's an easy fix to a big problem without waiting for stuff that are or just left the experimental stadium.

 

[ohio]

One thing I've heard about Hydrogen cells is although they do burn cleanly, the act of actually harvesting the hydrogen produces a significant ammount of pollutants. Is that true? Again, I thought I heard that's why BMW discontinued their H powered car.

Hydrogen is reformed through electrolysis. This process requires electricity. Right now, the vast majority of our electricity is produced either burning petroleum or coal.

Created this way, hydrogen is essentially a battery, although a fuel cell is less efficient than a battery.

Two ways around this:
1. Building fuel cells with ethanol or methonal reformers built in... which means your fuel cells then create CO2. However, they would be vastly more efficient than gas engines, and the carbon cycle would be much shorter since the ethanol would be made from crops, rather then buried dinosaurs.
2. Build enough nuke/wind/solar/etc. power to replace coal and oil burning plants.

A hydrogen vehicle is an electic vehicle, with the advantage that it doesn't have a recharge period, and to build one with massive capacity might eventually be cheaper than a pure electric (you can just up the gas tank size, rather than adding expensive batteries). Other than that, there is NO difference.

The real application of fuel cells is in portable battery replacement (laptops), and in off-grid electricity (rural US, developing countries, space stations). By the time hydrogen cars are ready (if ever, and that's ignoring the infrastructure part) it's likely conventional batteries will easily give us a 300 mile range anyway.

 

[ohio]

To my knowledge no Japanese or U.S. company sells them for your internal market.
The diesel engine is about 20-30% more efficient than a equivalent petrol engine who in return is 30% more efficient than a ethanol driven engine of the same output.

Mercedes and VW are the only companies that sell diesels in the US. While I agree with you, diesel does burn dirtier. At this point it's a trade-off I'm probably willing to make to reduce CO2 emissions and oil dependency, (especially when you start talking diesel hybrids with plug-in capability), but you should recognize that there ARE trade-offs.