|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
Greens read and weep....
 Mon Dec 11, 2000 10:08 am
|
 |
|
The graphs here show unequivically that particulant, nox's , so2's, and more importantly co2, and pollution in general has been reducing since 1970....Throat, elvis, read and weep....
These are graphs so there should be no interpretation problems....
Miscellanious amonia is the only thing I find unusual...
EPA
T/S
[Edited 2 times, lastly by theseeker on 12-11-2000] |
| |
|
|
Thermit
Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3136
Location: Texas |
|
Mon Dec 11, 2000 5:29 pm
|
|
|
Why would a "green" "weep" that the environment is getting better? |
| |
|
|
nodebbunker
Joined: 01 Nov 2000
Posts: 200
Location: Indiana USA |
|
Mon Dec 11, 2000 7:25 pm
|
|
|
Thermit, I think what Seeker meant was that there are those of us who are concerned about the environment but we are not radical Greens who support the communist agenda to make earth first above man and share what's left. I consider people like Gorbachov, Gore, Maurice Strong, the Klintons, AKA the Watermelon party (Green on the outside, red on the inside) and anybody who is a hysterical radical a Green. They want to shut down American industry while the rest of the world, especially Russia and China, continue to pollute through B.S. treaties they ignore and do what they want anyway. Science is saying otherwise to an agenda created long ago and implemented to support such things as land grabs, in the name of saving the environment, giving control over to the U.N.
Why would they weep at the good news? Probably out of embarrassment for being hood-winked into believing the false foundation being used to sell out this country's sovreignty and our personal freedom right along with it.
Edited for this addition:
Hijacked from Carnciom's board - sorry the link didn't work so here's the text:
China To Become Planet's Environmental Destroyer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.insidechina.com/news.php3?id=214681
China To Become Planet's Top Environmental Destroyer By 2020
10-29-00
BEIJING (Agence France Presse) - China, on track to become the world's number one emitter of carbon dioxide, will not sacrifice its economic development to the battle against global warming, officials said.
Beijing will approach an international global warming conference in the Hague in November ready to torpedo any proposal which seeks to impose restrictions on developing countries' pollutive emissions, as has been suggested by German Environment Minister Juergen Trittin.
"The issue of cutting developing countries' carbon gas emissions should not be revived again," said a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman.
Limits on carbon gas emissions were imposed on developed countries by the Kyoto Protocol adopted three years ago in Japan, despite calls for developing countries to help shoulder the burden.
The 38 industrialized countries who signed up to the protocol should apply their pledges "as fast as possible" including funding and technology transfers for developing countries in their struggle against pollution, the spokesman said.
According to a government expert, the rise in temperature on the Tibetan plateau has exceeded the world average (up 0.8 degrees since 1950), threatening to dry up rivers which water a large part of Asia, such as the Yangtze, the Mekong and the Yellow River.
China is the second largest emitter of carbon dioxide -- one of the principal factors contributing to global warming -- accounting for 14 percent of the planet's total.
And by 2020 it is expected to surpass the United States, emitting 18 percent of the world's total.
China points to its huge population saying it emits four times less carbon dioxide per person than developed countries.
"But this should not exclude China from the responsibility of joining the global community to protect our common climate," said Xavier Chen, of the International Energy Agency (IEA).
According to the IEA, China's energy consumption will more than double in the next 20 years particularly since 77 percent of its energy consumption is provided by coal.
Even if that figure fell to 67 percent of total energy consumption in 2020, China would still burn twice as much coal as it does today, Mr Chen said
The increasing number of vehicles in China is also a significant factor in the worsening pollution situation, according to World Watch, an American environmental research center.
If China had as many cars per person as the United States it would burn 80 million barrels of oil every day, more than global production (64 million), it said.
The five-year social and economic development plan, just adopted by the Communist party, places a priority on the environment, but at the same time, promises to "boost capacity to buy personal cars," state media has reported.
And China's pollution levels also carry a financial and health toll. Experts estimate that after 20 years of unchecked growth, authorities are counting the cost of pollution on health and agriculture, estimated to be around 8 percent of GDP.
The World Bank estimated in 1997 that nearly 300,000 Chinese die each year from pollution-related ailments.
"China has one of the most comprehensive environment policies in the world but it cannot enforce it on a local level," said Plato Yip, of the Hong Kong arm of environmental agency Friends of the Earth
"The central government has trouble controlling highly polluting small rural industries which move from village to village from one day to the next."
China, already feeling the pinch from closing indebted state enterprises has balked at closing down these small industries, said Yip. ((c) 2000 Agence France Presse)
[Edited 1 times, lastly by nodebbunker on 12-14-2000] |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Mon Dec 11, 2000 7:38 pm
|
|
|
You are selective in what you read...eh Thermit ?
Elvis pretty much called me a liar in a post recently on this topic....as you should see if there is no threat there is nothing for them to say, nobody to scare,nobody to control,the system is not broke, it is working and levels across the board are dropping...
I would say the first graphs tells all, fuel usage and GNP are way way up, yet emissions are on the decline...
I would stick a small barb here inferring that we will never here anything from throat on this, or about these graphs...he's afraid to look....the truth that things are getting better goes against his principles ie: "they're out to get us"......
T/S |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
|
Mon Dec 11, 2000 10:41 pm
|
|
|
Clarification seeker.
Since it is the American population that consumes a disproportionate amount (per capita) of the world's natural resources, it is not "they" who are out to get us, but rather our own lifestyle.
In this case, I believe what Pogo said to be true, "We have met the enemy and it is us."
And by the way, I'm all in favor of advances in technologies which reduce pollution, and create new, sustainable, American jobs. What I will oppose are those who suggest that there are no pressing environmental problems that need our immediate attention. |
| |
|
|
elvis lives
Joined: 30 Sep 2000
Posts: 143
Location: Pismo Beach, California |
|
Tue Dec 12, 2000 6:25 am
|
|
|
Seeker.....
"The graphs here show unequivically that particulant, nox's , so2's, and more importantly co2, and pollution in general has been reducing since 1970....Throat, elvis, read and weep...."
If you believe that EPA report...I have a bridge for sale. Maybe NASA and the EPA should get together and get their stories straight.
“In its May 1996 study, "Atmospheric Effects of Aviation," NASA estimated that subsonic flights in the NAFC had increased atmospheric soot by 10 percent, sulfur oxides by nearly 10 percent and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from 10 to 100 percent.” http://www.enn.com/enn-features-archive/1997/12/120997/1209fea_20122.asp
Asthma and upper respiratory disease increases tenfold in the last 5 years and the EPA says air pollution is at an all time low? This gives credit to the old adage...."figures never lie, but all liars figure".
|
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Tue Dec 12, 2000 6:31 am
|
|
|
Oh boy !
>Since it is the American population that consumes a disproportionate amount (per capita) of the world's natural resources<
Really ?....and who judges this ? Your line of thinking is right out of karl marxs' mantra...
I feel sorry for you Throat, you obviously feel guilty for our nations prosperity....
You have been "had" Throat....
BTW, prophecy fullfilled
T/S
|
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Tue Dec 12, 2000 7:21 am
|
|
|
Well elvis, another green link....eh...
I will side with studies ongoing over a period of atleast 20 years...anything else has no basis in fact.
>The NOx ejected by jet engines contributes to global warming by helping to create ozone clouds that trap heat in the troposphere.<
That statement is incorrect, all clouds help to trap heat in the troposphere.
>In 1996, aircraft generated nearly half the NOx found in the mid-latitudes <
It is well know that 'lightning' is the largest producer of NOx....I see exact reference is not given to this theory,but the german dude does admit that this assumption is based on "estimates"....
quote :"according to estimates cited by Ulrich Schumann of the DLR Institute in Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany."
I will give you the benefit of the doubt elvis, contact this man :
Dr. Sundar Christopher, Assistant Professor,sundar.christopher@atmos.uah.edu
Upon doing so all of what I posted above will be confirmed, you and Throat will find out that 'biomass burning' is the single greatest threat to our environment.
Biomass burning is the burning of feilds, in south america it is really bad...per capita blows your 'soot' from jets away in comparison....
I am not about nor am I for assumptions, estimates, or environmental gobble-d-gook....
It is or it isn't...you and the german dude get back with me when YOU have FACTS !
T/S |
| |
|
|
cydoniaquest
Joined: 12 Aug 2000
Posts: 797
Location: nowhere |
|
Tue Dec 12, 2000 10:31 am
|
|
|
DELETED BY THE ARTIST FORMALLY KNOWN AS CYDONIAQUEST
[Edited 1 times, lastly by cydoniaquest on 01-13-2001] |
| |
|
|
nodebbunker
Joined: 01 Nov 2000
Posts: 200
Location: Indiana USA |
|
Tue Dec 12, 2000 3:15 pm
|
|
|
Well said, Cy!
Elvis said> "Asthma and upper respiratory disease increases tenfold in the last 5 years and the EPA says air pollution is at an all time low? This gives credit to the old adage...."figures never lie, but all liars figure".
Elvis, please refer to the Asthma Awareness thread. What would be the results if research indicates that just maybe asthma (and obesity, for example) were genetically related and could be controlled by other means than current pharmaceuticals and air cleaning machines? Asthma and obesity in our country has increased in spite of our efforts to curb same.
But so has the population increased, especially since more women (And not necessarily "couples") are choosing to have more children than they did 20 years ago. In the '80's, schools were closed down because there wasn't enough kids to fill them, remember that? Now with urban sprawl, they can't build schools fast enough while the inner city schools are busting at the seams. And there again, more new homes and schools for bigger families equal more kids with allergies exposed to indoor pollution from treated and synthetic building materials as well as molds, fungus, etc.
Fear sells.
Edited for this addition:
Talking It Over: 2/3/99
Hillary Clinton
February 3, 1999
Asthma: Last year, I also wrote about the alarming increase in childhood asthma. Many people don't understand how debilitating this disease can be and that it now affects 6 million American children, double the number 15 years ago. The President's budget includes the largest ever federal investment to fight childhood asthma -- through research, disease management education and a new public-information campaign.
http://www.newsmax.com/cgi-bin/htsearch?sort=Score&format=Long&config=&restrict=&exclude=&method=and&words=asthma
------------------
just a housewife from Indiana
[Edited 1 times, lastly by nodebbunker on 12-12-2000] |
| |
|
|
canex
Joined: 26 Oct 2000
Posts: 164
Location: USA |
|
Wed Dec 13, 2000 3:02 am
|
|
|
Just a some technicalities about some of Seeker's and Throat's discussion of NOx, etc. The NOx and other gases from aircraft exhaust (what the aviation report and Schumann were referring to) have increased substantially, but only at 30,000 ft, not at the surface. They had nothing to say about NOx etc at the surface. The biomass burning over S. America, Africa, Indonesia, etc. is a much larger contributor of particulates and gases.
While it is true that all clouds help trap heat in the atmosphere, all clouds also cause cooling during the daytime by reflecting sunlight back to space. Some clouds are better at reflecting than others. On average, clouds cause more cooling than heating. But contrails, like other thin cirrus clouds usually induce warming. The reference to an ozone cloud is misleading. It is volume of air with enhanced concentrations of ozone gas, not a cloud in the sense of a volume filled with a concentration of particulates. |
| |
|
|
BONG HITS
Joined: 16 Nov 2000
Posts: 12
Location: Cranford, NJ 07016 |
|
Wed Dec 13, 2000 5:54 am
|
|
|
Legalize Hemp, Save AmeriKa, Save Farmers, Save the Environment, Save OUR $$$ by NOT putting good people in prison. Stop the WOD! (War On Drugs)Let nature's wild wacky weed clean the trail goo out of the air! Renewable Every Year!
Way Out There and NOT Afraid To Speak Up....
------------------
Mario
The American Rebel
& The NOT-SEE |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Wed Dec 13, 2000 9:37 am
|
|
|
Canex,
I felt the article was biased and took input from a source and delivered inflection of the writer, and I ceratinly was not making fun of Schumann....but stand by what I have learned.
>(what the aviation report and Schumann were referring to) have increased substantially, but only at 30,000 ft, not at the surface.<
Another reason not to eat snow ?
>But contrails, like other thin cirrus clouds usually induce warming. <
Resolves the 'opaque' question...(passing light and heat)
Glad you still read here canex.....
Mario, a truer statement I have not seen:
>Way Out There and NOT Afraid To Speak Up....<
T/S
|
| |
|
|
cydoniaquest
Joined: 12 Aug 2000
Posts: 797
Location: nowhere |
|
Wed Dec 13, 2000 10:46 am
|
|
|
DELETED BY THE ARTIST FORMALLY KNOWN AS CYDONIAQUEST
[Edited 1 times, lastly by cydoniaquest on 01-13-2001] |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page
1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri May 25, 2012 10:50 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
