Galileo Movement

[Sarumatix]

1. You say America uses 1,430,883,000L of gasoline per year and that 1L gasoline=2.4 kgs. How then does this equal 596,201.250 tonnes of CO2?

Thank you for pointing that out, I thought it was a little small. Hit divide instead of multiply . 3,434,119.200 tonnes or 2.6ish% of world volcanic atmospheric carbon output as quoted from the Galileo Movement.

I found my info from a variety of sources none of which were rocket science to find, wiki has a figure, US energy Administration has a figure (2202734896.815L), world bank, CIA, etc etc. I did say it was from a quick google search not from any current research.

2. I found it hard enough to believe that every man, women and child in America consumes over 1 barrel of oil per day, even enough only 72 million barrels of oil are produced each day in the world.

I put per day when I (obviously) meant per year and continued on the rest of the calculation using per year as I was trying to use the same units as was quoted to me. Sorry for any confusion the end answer is still reported correctly (per year).

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html

Then you go on to say that on average each citizen of the world consumes 13.79 million barrels of oil EACH DAY. So every aids riddled child in africa living on $0.30 each day also happens to consume $137,000,000 US of oil PER DAY.

I made a typo of million billion when what I meant to write was (obviously):

Sadly the world actually consumes around 82.78 million barrels a day

Which equates to a not unbelievable 0.012 barrels per person per day in the world (with a population of 6.92 billion) including the poor and disadvantaged in the world.

CIA

If you have a uni degree relating to this subject yet cant even get simple facts/figures or year 7 maths right how can you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously? On second thoughts, perhaps it would be better to ask the question, why the **** are people taking you seriously?

PS: Im not saying I believe or don't believe climate change, just that I don't believe you

You can believe whoever and whatever you want, obviously you are as capable as I of doing your own research and drawing your own conclusions. I don't expect anything and i'm grateful you took the time to pick up on my typos as it is an important topic worth discussing (unlike so much dribble that goes around and is considered important). I never professed to being an expert because it is not my area of interest and has little to do with anything I do. I can't tell you why people are taking me seriously, but I guess it may relate to there being a lot more sources than my 2 posts on SAU to garner this information? In any case I guess if a couple of typos is enough for you to discard the actual point that I was clearly trying to make, so be it, but I wont lose any sleep over it.

[beemae30]

I think the greatest statement off all. Is that you need a licence to drive a car, own a gun or any other tiny thing but for some screwed up moral bull crap. Any Tom, Dick or Harry is allowed to have 100 kids and its perfectly ok.

Edited June 5, 2011 by beemae30

[blind_elk]

Can someone please explain the following (for Melbourne):

November 2009 was the hottest November on record (ave daily temp 27.1). Prior to this, the hottest November was in 1862 (25.5). What happened in 1862 that made it so hot? It couldn't possibly have been anthropogenic activity. And if it wasn't anthropogenic activity, why should we believe that the most recent hot November is the result of anthropogenic activity?

Until 2009, the hottest day recorded in Melbourne was way back in 1939. Why did it take so long?

This last May was the COLDEST May in 41 years. (thank goodness for global warming, I say!)

If climate change were genuine, then many of the months would have had their hottest days or highest averages in recent years. They haven't.

The earth has been a lot warmer in the past; and it has been a lot colder. Its all part of a cycle of change.

BTW, I'm not a non-believer, I'm a sceptic. I became more sceptical when the soothsayers stopped referring to "global warming" and started referring to "climate change".

[scarf]

Im undecided on this, only because I beleive the government will waste the carbon tax we all will end up paying.

In 10-20 yrs time we will still be in the same predicament, talking the same stuff, as it as a very grey area, and I dont think either side knows whats really going on.

I would like projects that are implemented that are environmentally friendly, but I cant trust government in not wasting millions on nothing.

[BoyWhoCriedWolf]

Whilst the atmosphere is a huge thing I do believe it is finely balanced. The changes that mankind are effecting on the environment are not huge by any percentage of the total but they do have an impact. We have been impacting the environment for thousands of years but now, with our modern technology, our want for the new things resulting in a disposable mentality we are impacting the enviroment more and more. What we do to our environment is cumulative and its compounding result will eventually catch us out.

What would we ever do if suddenly we found out we were on an exponetial decline into irreversible climate shift?

[GTR-N1]

True temp change proportional to climate is only assessable over eons.

Don't be fooled by what seasons you've experienced in a lifetime of decades.

Average world temps have been dropping since 1997 anyway, and I don't even cosider that.

The Chilean volcano at the moment is spewing out more CO2 and SO2 today than what the USA and China can put out in a week.

The amount of these gasses that are being produced via mid-ocean rifts is incalculable.

As I said earlier, Greenland's receding ice is exposing farm houses that were used many centuries ago + evidence of growing crops there.

The cycles continue today

The cycles contiune long after we die.

Someone said earlier that there was a lot of smog and that's not good for greenhousde effects.

The fact is, CO2 is not smog. That was particulate matter which does include carbon particles.

CO2 yes, is a greenhouse gas. But so too is water vapour. Don't believe me. Look it up!

CO2 is a colourless odourless gas that grasses and trees love to feed off.

Fact:- human contribution in Oz to the world's CO2 is 0.00016%.

What difference is Aust going to make by killing off our Bluescope Steel, RioTinto, BHP, Hammersley mines, Coal mining > and then our economy.

And even if reducing CO2 did make one speck of difference, what's the use of Aust going ahead whilst China and USA sit on their hands?

USA is in debt to the tens of trillions. The only way they can get out of this hole is to reduce debt via inflation. It would be in their ineterests to set off world inflation.

Then they might think about what CO2 really does > then debunk Al Gore who by the way has just bought a lovely seaside residence - what an 'inconvenient fu(kin truth' that is!

[scathing]

I became more sceptical when the soothsayers stopped referring to "global warming" and started referring to "climate change".

How come? Re-analysing data in light of new discoveries, or acknowledging mistakes in the past rather than dogmatically sticking to existing beliefs, is at the heart of scientific advancement.

Im undecided on this, only because I beleive the government will waste the carbon tax we all will end up paying

Agreeing with climate change as a principle doesn't necessarily mean supporting a specific political solution. I don't think a "carbon" tax is the solution, since it by itself does 4/5 of f**k all. Man's attempts to correct the imbalances it creates should be a holistic solution, not just one point.

As an analogy, driving at ludicrous speed is going to get people killed. But the government's myopic focus on speeding under the banner of "road safety", while ignoring so many other factors that contribute to our road toll, has a negligible effect and the obvious flaws in "headlining" it just take away from the road safety message. Trying to fix climate change by just crapping on about carbon at the expense of everything else humans do is the same, in my opinion. No-one would argue that barreling down a suburban street at 120km/hr would be stupid, but pinging people doing it on a modern dual carriageway is a joke.

By the same token, man-made climate is more than just carbon dioxide. I don't even know why it headlines as much as it does (potentially for some of the big business conspiracy theory reasons people bandy about). Pumping carbon dioxide in the air while deforesting the flora that converts it back into oxygen is something that humans are doing right now, and something that will f**k with the ecosystem. Deforestation by burning those forests and releasing carbon dioxide would just be putting the boot in.

Charging a carbon tax on might reduce the amount of carbon dioxide being produced, but if we're still getting rid of so many plants then we're still going to see a net increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere that will end up messing with the ecosystem's balance.

But, as another example, so does mass urbanisation. Approximately half the mass of concrete is water, and if you think about how many structures we're putting up (and developing nations are planning on building) that's a lot of water we're taking out of the water cycle. At least if we're drinking it, sticking it in our pools, or washing our cars, it just runs off or evaporates and just rejoins the water cycle at some point. The net effect is zero. But when we use it on large-scale chemical reactions we take that water out of the water cycle. So in the same way yes, we should do more to conserve water, but stopping us from washing our cars doesn't actually do anything as a long-term solution. Especially while we're not putting regulation on how construction companies use up water in a manner that never releases it back into the water cycle. At least with farmers the water is going in to crops and animals that will eventually die and release the water back into the water cycle (either naturally or after we've consumed it and passed it through our bodies).

The Chilean volcano at the moment is spewing out more CO2 and SO2 today than what the USA and China can put out in a week.

But do volcanoes billow gases all day, every day, for decades like human industry does?

CO2 yes, is a greenhouse gas. But so too is water vapour. Don't believe me. Look it up!

And if we were releasing too much water vapour into the atmosphere (which we might be, I haven't looked), scientists would be telling us to reduce that too.

CO2 is a colourless odourless gas that grasses and trees love to feed off.

What does the "colourless" and "odourless" bits have to do with anything? It just seems like bringing up an irrelevant fact on its physical appearance to distract from its chemical properties. Did you know that, in rainforests, the most beautiful and sweetest smelling flora and fauna are inevitably the poisonous ones?

Yes, trees love to feed off CO2. But in sufficient concentrations plants will die from CO2 poisoning. Plants still have a respiration system that requires oxygen as an input, with carbon dioxide as an output.

And there's only so much they can convert. Any excess is still going to linger in the environment, and as we ramp up emissions while reducing the amount of flora due to urbanisation and desertification (the former undeniably man-made, the latter arguably) those concentrations are just going to get worse.

Fact:- human contribution in Oz to the world's CO2 is 0.00016%. What difference is Aust going to make by killing off our Bluescope Steel, RioTinto, BHP, Hammersley mines, Coal mining > and then our economy.

You're taking the "everyone else is doing the wrong thing, so why can't I?" defence? Really? I think this demotivator is all the response needed:

In the end it depends on if you want to be a leader, or a follower. Someone always has to be the first to do something, and if innovation in other sectors is any indication I suppose that will never be Australia. As a nation we always seem to be afraid to actually do things on our own.

As for the concentrations, a Blood Alcohol Concentration level of 0.05 (i.e. our legal limit for driving) means that every litre of blood contains 0.00005% ethanol. Going to 0.00016% means being 3 times the legal limit, which would have the average person pretty smashed. Just because your percentage looks small in absolute terms doesn't mean it doesn't have noticable effects.

And, to extrapolate that analogy further, having an occasional bender where you hit a >.16 BAC isn't going to reduce your life (length or quality of) by a noticable margin. But if you're doing it all day every day, medical research says that life expectancy and quality is going to be far lower. But hey, I'm not a medical practitioner. Ethanol is a flavourless and colourless liquid that's naturally occurring, which people around the world regularly enjoy. I'm assuming we can expect people who've "done their own research" while not being qualified in the field will be telling us that continuous and ever-increasing consumption of C2H5OH is going to have no ill effect on the ecosystem that is our bodies...

[Peter89]

May I recommend that we take a hard look at The Galileo Movement and if you believe real experts, get behind it!

http://www.galileomo...eo_movement.php

Do your own research rather than remain a 'mushroom'

* Your cars do NOT contribute to global warming.

* By the second year of a carbon tax introduction, older cars and performance modifications are under threat

* CO2 occurs as a consequence of global warming; not a cause of it!

* CO2 contributes to the greening of the planet through our biosphere

* Global cooling is more of a danger than warming

* Many other facts available on links on Galileo Movement website > stop the 'carbon' tax which is really a carbon dioxide tax > there are links where you can help!

PS I've posted this in Gen Automotive rather than Wasteland; because it deserves to be here.

PPS I'm a Science graduate, but I know nothing compared to the real Climatologists who say that if we allow a carbon tax to go ahead, we're being dudded - big time

Comments?

In Victoria, if you follow EPA laws to the letter, EVERY performance modification to the engine is illegal. I highly doubt they can do much worse.

On other note, humans can dramatically damage the earth. The OZONE layer is a great example of this. The OZONE layer had a huge hole in it, over Antarctica up until global bans on the production of CFCs.

Guess what happened? The OZONE hole is decreasing.

I think it is naive to assume that cutting down nearly all the worlds forest, burning unbelievably large amounts of fuels, will have no effect on the Earth.

But, I don't think Australia should do anything about it. Australia produces 1% of human CO2 output. Without China, India and America greatly reducing their CO2 levels, nothing is going to change.

Another way to look at is a nation security perspective. The less Australia relies on foreign sources of energy the better thus encouraging renewable energies is in our best interests.

Edited June 5, 2011 by Peter89

[GTR-N1]

Deforestation that you mentioned has brought this thread to its senses

It is the most reprehensible act that man has ever inflicted upon this planet!

I've been hoping for someone like you to bring it up!

It has upset and in fact utterly destroyed the balance of the ecosystem.

It has razed and eradicated fauna

It has eliminated flora that was absolutely mandatory for medical research

Did you know that a couple of diseases were on the verge of being at least rerouted by plants that were native to Indonesia and Brazil?

And back on the issue of cars, I have no problem with Shai Agassi's idea of Electric Renault cars spreading across the globe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shai_Agassi

[BoyWhoCriedWolf]

Deforestation that you mentioned has brought this thread to its senses

It is the most reprehensible act that man has ever inflicted upon this planet!

I've been hoping for someone like you to bring it up!

It has upset and in fact utterly destroyed the balance of the ecosystem.

It has razed and eradicated fauna

It has eliminated flora that was absolutely mandatory for medical research

Did you know that a couple of diseases were on the verge of being at least rerouted by plants that were native to Indonesia and Brazil?

And back on the issue of cars, I have no problem with Shai Agassi's idea of Electric Renault cars spreading across the globe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shai_Agassi

Its only part of the problem Terry.

[GTR-N1]

God can spew out in one day what we put out in a year through cars > Chile yesterday > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4IOXxH9Ry0

then in Argentina a few hours later > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWG5mAvCYVQ

Should we plant more trees > YES

Are we going to get carbon credits for planting them > NO (but on my acre plot I'll still maintain 1 tree or bush / sq metre)

Should the Fed Gov't restrict old cars by force ie. law, in their next term > NO

Should Gov't encourage a transition into greener cars > YES

[BoyWhoCriedWolf]

Should we plant more trees > YES

Are we going to get carbon credits for planting them > NO (but on my acre plot I'll still maintain 1 tree or bush / sq metre)

Should the Fed Gov't restrict old cars by force ie. law, in their next term > NO

Should Gov't encourage a transition into greener cars > YES

I agree wholeheartedly with these points. They say petro-electric cars will out sell straight petrol cars within 10 years.

[FrangaR33]

I agree wholeheartedly with these points. They say petro-electric cars will out sell straight petrol cars within 10 years.

If the government was really concerned with saving the enviroment they would make it financially viable for Australia to become a leading manufacturer and adopter of Hyrdogen power vehicles instead of this half hearted effort with crap like the Camry Hybrid (which literally no one but government agencies actually wants to buy). Australia has a great opportunity to get ahead of the rest of the world for a change instead of playing catch up, why not pioneer Hydrogen vehicles and make a killing exporting those cars to the rest of the world.

[BoyWhoCriedWolf]

Great plan however its very unlikely for the car companies to invest the money required to start that sort of thing, and the car companies as we know are already heavily subsidised by the government.

That will be the lot of the Chinese who can see the forward value in that type of vehicle. They have the money and the drive to do it.

[skins]

I thought the world leaders ( wankers ) put a P.C spin on global warming that's why they called it climate change.

[Peter89]

OP; ignoring CO2 and global warning, what do you think should be done to solve rising energy costs? Considering all fossil fuels are exponentially depleting and we can't run our cars on petrol forever.

[GTR-N1]

Am I to assume that you're talking about just Australia? If so...

We have enough coal to last Australia for centuries > electricity

Plus...

We need to build more dhydams (in a water starved country - once La Nina has switched across to El Nino reflected by southern oscillation index) > hydroelectricity

http://en.wikipedia...._power_stations

Which ridiculously, the Greenies are against...

Shai Agassi in conjunction with Renault distributes battery stations where in less time than a car fills up with PULP, an electric car has its depleted batteries swapped over for charged ones.

^^^ Yes, Australia is earmarked by Mr Agassi; but hey, these are my thoughts only...

And that's just electricity.

[GTR-N1]

But do volcanoes billow gases all day, every day, for decades like human industry does?

Mid-ocean rifts emit gasses all day - every day! Iceland is an example of a mid-ocean rift that has risen above seawater

And if we were releasing too much water vapour into the atmosphere (which we might be, I haven't looked), scientists would be telling us to reduce that too.

Not interested in just scientists - moreover, climatologists are more credible and most of them have not been sucked in by people from 'Gore to Garnault' neither of whom are even scientists

What does the "colourless" and "odourless" bits have to do with anything?

I was replying to an earlier post about his concern over smog Alan

Yes, trees love to feed off CO2. But in sufficient concentrations plants will die from CO2 poisoning. Plants still have a respiration system that requires oxygen as an input, with carbon dioxide as an output.

All the more reason to grow more trees back up to parity before last century's deforestation programmes

You're taking the "everyone else is doing the wrong thing, so why can't I?" defence? Really?

Read further > Someone asked the OP for his version of a solution - and not a whinge!

Debate goes on...

[scathing]

Found another op ed piece on the SMH regarding climate change, pointing out that there are idiots on both sides.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-dangers-of-boneheaded-beliefs-20110602-1fijg.html

[dkbcleaner]

Carbon tax! What a fkn joke! Politicians would be sitting back laughing at all those stupid people rallying for the tax. If it goes through they would be thinking 'gee what other bullshit can we put a spin on and make some more money? These idiots will fall for anything'. Remember, we contribute 1.3% to worlds pollution. Is Australia going to make a difference? NO! Is it going to cost us more money? YES! Is the Government going to waste this money on crap? PROBABLY! Will bet my left nut on it!