Nothing to see here, move along

[dedalos]

i know. it's a heavy gas though........

Ahh yeah, I forgot, and therefore the gases that compose our atmosphere are in layers based on their weight.  Got to suck for short peoplez 

[Shuffler]

At least this is true with the energy saving lamps, which are much more complicated to produce. Hard to say about the cars though. At least the batteries of electric cars aren't as easy to dispose as the fuel tanks (also hybrid cars will increase the amount of disposed batteries), and the electricity too has to be produced in a way or another. Even recycling requires energy and resources, which in turn will cause pollution. Apparently the massive amount of required electricity to power millions of electric cars isn't going to be produced by nuclear power reactors, since the greenie/climate hippies (e.g. the Greenterrorist organization) are against those as well. Any other way of producing electricity with the currently available technologies isn't going to make cars any greenier than oil - the cars may be greenier, but the pollution is only transfered elsewhere.

The question really is that have we reduced pollution overall or have we just moved it elsewhere.

Hamsters in wheels

[Shuffler]

Ahh yeah, I forgot, and therefore the gases that compose our atmosphere are in layers based on their weight.  Got to suck for short peoplez 

It a well known fact that crowded elevators smell different to midget.

[RTHolmes]

That's a canard.

There are other ways to produce fuel that will not knock other than adding lead, or federally subsidizing farmers to produce a product that is a net energy loser because they have friends and lobbyists in DC.

I wasnt talking about biofuels or synthetic ethanol as a fuel. Just anti-knock additives to petrol like ETBE. there are plenty of other additives but they all share one thing in common - they are alot more expensive than TEL. just using this simple example to make the point that the market will give you the cheapest option, not the best.

canard - thats french for duck right?

[oneway]

I wasnt talking about biofuels or synthetic ethanol as a fuel. Just anti-knock additives to petrol like ETBE. there are plenty of other additives but they all share one thing in common - they are alot more expensive than TEL. just using this simple example to make the point that the market will give you the cheapest option, not the best.

canard - thats french for duck right?

I am not familiar with ETBE but I am very familiar with MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether). MTBE was shoved down the throats of Californians by both the refiners and the green movement as the end all be all alternative to lead as an oxygenate/additive.

Normal environmental review was thrown to the wind for two reasons: The tree huggers wanted anything but lead in their typically short sighted view and inability to examine the possibility of unintended consequence, the refining industry could now take a normal waste product of fuel production and use it as a component in process and make money off of it. We had two immensely powerfully lobby groups driving CARB policy and the left wing California legislature loved the flow of cash into their coffers.

What the citizens ended up with was a carcinogen that poisoned our environment, despite the arguments against MTBE grounded in solid science and objective economic analysis. MTBE has subsequently been banned as an additive; though its proponents true to style...characterize it with terms such as 'phased out', only to be replaced by the parallel failure of ethanol.

The status quo top down centralized planning process consistently fails in their publicly stated mission and PR releases; they succeed fabulously in lining their pockets and exploiting the sytem to their benefit.

Oneway

edit: My use of the word canard refers to the anolgy often drawn between an oblique control surface of an aircraft and a tangential and meaningless argument in conversation masquerading as an honest attempt to address another point.

[oneway]

I am not familiar with ETBE but I am very familiar with MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether). MTBE was shoved down the throats of Californians by both the refiners and the green movement as the end all be all alternative to lead as an oxygenate/additive.

Normal environmental review was thrown to the window for two reasons: The tree huggers wanted anything but lead in their typically short sighted view and inability to examine the possibility of unintended consequence, the refining industry could now take a normal waste product of fuel production and use it as a component in process and make money off of it. We had two immensely powerfully lobby groups driving CARB policy and the left wing California legislature loved the flow of cash into their coffers.

What the citizens ended up with was a carcinogen that poisoned our environment, despite the arguments against MTBE grounded in solid science and objective economic analysis. MTBE has subsequently been banned as an additive; though its proponents true to style...characterize it with terms such as 'phased out', only to be replaced by the parallel failure of ethanol.

The status quo top down centralized planning process consistently fails in their publicly stated mission and PR releases; they succeed fabulously in lining their pockets and exploiting the sytem to their benefit.

Oneway

edit: My use of the word canard refers to the anolgy often drawn between an oblique control surface of an aircraft and a tangential and meaningless argument in conversation masquerading as an honest attempt to address another point.

[RTHolmes]

edit: My use of the word canard refers to the anolgy often drawn between an oblique control surface of an aircraft and a tangential and meaningless argument in conversation masquerading as an honest attempt to address another point.

ok thanks never heard that before.

it was hardly tangential though, you said "Let the market place sort this out", Im saying that is a dreadful solution because the market maximises only short-term profit. and as this thread proves consumers arent informed enough to make rational decisions about their energy sources.

[FireDrgn]

bolded....the atmosphere does not heat the oceans.

" There is no way mathematically you can heat the ocean with air"     so  thats the same as    "the atmosphere does not heat the oceans"

[CAP1]

" There is no way mathematically you can heat the ocean with air"     so  thats the same as    "the atmosphere does not heat the oceans"

it bore repeating. too many people think that's how the ocean gets warmed up.

[FireDrgn]

rgr.    gotcha

[MrRiplEy[H]]

it bore repeating. too many people think that's how the ocean gets warmed up.

But the reverse is true so the problem kinda remains

[CAP1]

But the reverse is true so the problem kinda remains

what problem?

[Sonicblu]

The power to heat the ocean does not come from the power plants, it comes from the sun. It takes only a small amount of energy from you to close the oven door and let electricity power to cook what is inside.
The skin layer of water will raise 1/4 of a degree very fast. It is only a matter of what you measure and which numbers one chooses to quote. This is exactly the same crap as claiming there is global warming and showing an iceberg melting on TV. The public can relate to the image, but never grasp the full picture.

Having said that, man made global warming is a scam.

Did you even read my post???
I didn't say that's where the heat comes from I said if you did it's called an example. If plugging the power plants directly into the ocean can't do it, neither can warm air. It just shows the enormous energy it would take.
And no  the sun doesn't do it directly. The current water temp is what it is because of the radiant heat of the sun.
The claim is that the oceans are getting warmer than what we can account from direct sun energy. So the came up with a fairytail that says oh carbon emissions in the atmosphere are causing the air to get hotter than it normally would the only way the can account for extra heat is warmer air. The " normal " ocean temp already accounts for the direct sun energy.
 

[Sonicblu]

bolded....the atmosphere does not heat the oceans.

Your right, that's why their claim is so absurd. Yet it is the only way they can try to claim a hotter water temp, because the temp of the water is already accounted for from direct sun energy, and if they said it's the sun that's doing it it's no longer man made. They have to says it's man made so the can legislate what we can do.

 

[Sonicblu]

How do you define skin of water?

Yes it is possible to heat the skin of water  so what?

Heating the skin of the ocean is even more problematic there is no way it could account for a 1/4 degree temp rise. Do the math it would take 35,000 degree air to impart enough energy to the oceans to get that kind of temp rise in about 20,000 years. I think we would know if the air was that hot