Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Terror on March 02, 2007, 11:06:34 AM
-
According to the scientist in this article, since Mars is also warming, it's strong evidence that "global warming" is caused by SOLAR activity and not as much man-made activity....
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html)
Seems to be a logical conclusion....
Terror
-
Or maybe warming on mars is man made as well.
Coincidence. I THINK NOT!
-
ZOMG the high priests will be here to call you an infidel soon!
:rofl
No other evidence that challenges their god can be valid, it must have been paid for by Satan(oil companies).
-
Didn't gore invent mars????? :huh
-
Does this mean we can pollute more?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
ZOMG the high priests will be here to call you an infidel soon!
its funny you say that since you believe just as earnestly and fanatically the opposite. we all cherry pick from the available information the ideas we want/need to be true.
-
Originally posted by Furious
its funny you say that since you believe just as earnestly and fanatically the opposite. we all cherry pick from the available information the ideas we want/need to be true.
Hardly
I agree the earth is warming, I just don't think there is enough evidence to make sweeping global changes that will probably make no difference.
I find the fanatics on both side laughable.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
...I find the fanatics on both side laughable.
well, then we agree.
-
Originally posted by Furious
well, then we agree.
Thats not so bad is it? Though I do feel this faint burning itching sensation.... ;)
-
Originally posted by mandingo
Does this mean we can pollute more?
Absolutely!! All you want in fact as long as you pay your "green fine" for having done so. That makes it all better you know. :rolleyes:
-
Green fine = carbon credits? Weren't they giving away carbon credits at the oscars so rich liberals could fly their private jets guilt free? I feel like such a peasant around rich liberals...
-
don't worry any minute now and our liberals and our friends from europe will post conclusive evidence tying that bit of news directly to the united states and president bush clearly being at fault.
-
Remember this is just based on 3 years of data. I wouldn't discount it but I wouldn't make a hard conclusion from it either.
No fun, I know.
-
So can will we be able to move to mars soon? Couldn't we grow plants on mars, because plants breath in carbon dioxide and the release oxygen?
-
if mars' polar ice cap is shrinking, why isnt it turning to water?
im so confoosed :confused: :(
-
Originally posted by Ball
if mars' polar ice cap is shrinking, why isnt it turning to water?
im so confoosed :confused: :(
It's carbon dioxide and it evaporates as soon as it melts....
T
-
Originally posted by Terror
It's carbon dioxide and it evaporates as soon as it melts....
T
would explain it, thanks.
wonder how long before the undersurface ice melts on mars
-
wow, thats like about a million years in a row mars has lost a polar cap
i though global warming didant exist
on the other hand the crocuses are coming up
(http://991.com/newgallery//Krokus-Ballroom-Blitz-294829.jpg)
which has happened b4 2
-
No No No...
According to the Global Warming nuts, its ALL the USA's fault. Not the smoggy Chinesse cities or the 3rd World regions where something like the EPA is unheard of.
Nope, according to the activists who tell the rest of us how to live, its all us. Meanwhile, they jump into their private jets, SUVs and other large-carbon footprint devices and insist we do as they say.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
No No No...
According to the Global Warming nuts, its ALL the USA's fault. Not the smoggy Chinesse cities or the 3rd World regions where something like the EPA is unheard of.
Nope, according to the activists who tell the rest of us how to live, its all us. Meanwhile, they jump into their private jets, SUVs and other large-carbon footprint devices and insist we do as they say.
Ohh the hypocrisy!
If you wanna come with pro or contra argument, bring something intelligent to the table.
We burn about 25% of the total world's energy, Chinese roughly 10%. If you account for our 'cleaner' technology, we are about equal in terms of the gross pollution output. But size of their population is about 3.5 times of ours, so, per head, their pollution output is about 1/3 of ours.
Beside that, we have dirty habit of 'outsourcing unclean' manufacturing to the 3rd world countries because their environmental laws are pretty much nonexistent (with added benefit of using cheap labor).
So, if there is a problem with the pollution, we shouldn't blame others nor should we whine if others are blaming us. We are all dirty pigs...
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
We burn about 25% of the total world's energy, Chinese roughly 10%. If you account for our 'cleaner' technology, we are about equal in terms of the gross pollution output. But size of their population is about 3.5 times of ours, so, per head, their pollution output is about 1/3 of ours.
"pollution per head", wow, way to spin the numbers.
merica is teh evil.
-
evil per head
-
I think that global warming is happening because we just had an ice age a few million years ago and its been warming up ever since. And its probably happened before too, since every time theres a cool down period, theres a warm up period very shortly after it.
-
fear my evil head!
-
Originally posted by john9001
"pollution per head", wow, way to spin the numbers.
How so?
Originally posted by john9001
merica is teh evil.
move somewhere else, commie...
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Didn't gore invent mars????? :huh
Was that before or after the pay phone?
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
How so?
Could it be because the billion Chinese have a GDP that is only about 1/6th of the US? By that measure, they polute more.:D
-
Well, it has to be because of solar energy. Without the sun, we'd have no heat. No sun, no global warming. Let's n00k the sun, end global warming!!!
-
carbon footprint
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Well, it has to be because of solar energy. Without the sun, we'd have no heat. No sun, no global warming. Let's n00k the sun, end global warming!!!
We could just put up some venitian blinds up between us and the sun.
-
Maybe we should declare the ice caps endangered and declare war on the sun? Just think of all the history lost in that water that's been frozen for millenia. The loss to future generations is incalculable. I'm sure there's doom for all humanity in there somewhere.
-
Originally posted by dmf
I think that global warming is happening because we just had an ice age a few million years ago and its been warming up ever since. And its probably happened before too, since every time theres a cool down period, theres a warm up period very shortly after it.
Technicaly we are in an ice-age. The last major cool down was about 10000bc. Give or take. The Earth has been through MUCH more drastic era's than this. Everyone should be thankfull we are not going through the "Snoball-Earth" time period.
-
(http://www.nintendorks.com/chris/archives/singletear.PNG)
-
(http://images.main.uab.edu/imedpub/Kleenex.jpg)
-
(http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Richard-Stacks/Chimpanzee-with-its-Fingers-in-its-Ears-Photographic-Print-C11911965.jpeg)
-
Ray of Gob (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ93L2NemWc)
-
we shall overcome (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8wGz6UxNKs)
-
Nice video non sequitur.
-
So is this "scientist" just wrong or stupid or what?
"Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.
Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.
"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said. "
This is pretty simple stuff.
the real "inconvienient truth" is......
ITS THE SUN STUPID.
lazs
-
Er........sorry to bring this up. But climate changes have occured on a regular basis during the History of the earth. Don't think Dinosaur dung had much of an effect. There were no cows, and to my knowledge no burning of fossil fuels unless it was a natural disaster.
It has lead sometimes to the demise of life as it was then. It has also caused life forms to evolve if it didn't cause the complete destruction of life.
I mean ....sheeesh....think of it. If these climate changes didn't occur naturally we'd be competing for parking spaces with Stegasaurus.
I know I know Comets colliding with the earth also caused the destruction of life. But climate changes did it more often.
-
yeah sure but... there is no money or power in the natural global warming.
lazs
-
This is what mars looked that then, now, and tomorrow.
(http://www.radionetherlands.nl/assets/images/Water_on_Mars2.jpg)
-
(http://tralfaz-archives.com/coverart/G/Grateful_Dead/gdead_marsf.jpg)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said. "
This is pretty simple stuff.
the real "inconvienient truth" is......
ITS THE SUN STUPID.
lazs
so, why did'nt you tell all of us in the first place and save us all the trouble lasz aka mr. smart guy?
i wonder if any of you have even WATCHED the movie. have you? it talks about the differences between the ice ages and most of the things that you are rolling on about in here.
i am pretty sure that at least "some" of it is a good arguement and there were parts that convinced me deeply.
heres the thing...we are ultimately going to have to be the ones responsible for taking control of, and or monitoring our environment because noone else is gonna do it for us. i for one have never enjoyed sitting in a smog filled room of carbon monoxide or swimming in a pool of my own filth.
that's what we do every time. we increase or fail to decrease the pollutants that we put into our atmosphere and into our water supply. we breath it and we swim in our own excrement.
we can be a real filthy lot sometimes.
so let's all sit around and find a way to justify it...lets waste some more time arguing about WHY it is happening rather than what we can do about it.
gee sounds fun...not.
global warming is only a part of the issue.
(said one cockroach to the other)
but it's something that we have to be prepared to accept responsibility for if and when we want to sustain our growth and prosperity as a species.
-
Don't you need to understand why something happens before you can think of the proper method to solve it?
-
Originally posted by moot
Don't you need to understand why something happens before you can think of the proper method to solve it?
yes. i misspoke.
what i was meaning to argue was that these arguments sound more like denial to me than anything else.
further, it is silly to say "well, we arent the worst contributor cuz this guy says so so forget about all of the other research that scientists have been working on...it's probably bunk now and the only reason they were doing it for was money so..."
it shouldnt be too hard to imagine that breathing and swimming in filth is bad enough. it shouldnt be to hard to grasp that we are contributing to that. ALOT.
even if that ALOT is not as much as we thought, it would be ridiculous for us not to try to curb it dramatically if it has even the slightest possibility of keeping our atmosphere from going the way of venus.
-
Regarding my earlier post concerning Global warming.
If History is any indication the atmosphere will either warm or cool. fact of life. Nothing much we can do to deter the powers of nature. We may be able to do something small on our behalf but that will be of little or no consequence. Just as in the Past Mother Earth will shed life forms like a bad coat. And....maybe life just might find a way. It is also likely that the next forms of life will look nothing like us. I don't see many left over from the Jurassic Period running around anymore or any other period from the billions of years past for but a few that are related to the Crocodile and some fish. Birds supposedly descendants of Dinosaurs are still with us.
Glad the ruby throated sparrow has no teeth ;)
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Didn't gore invent mars????? :huh
Al Gump is president of Mars and ruler of space cadets everywhere.
People will still be arguing about causes of "global warming" as the hole in the ozone melts off their skin.
-
All I'd say about the matter are truisms and common sense - no unneeded waste, etc. which is what you're saying too.
There's no conclusion to be drawn from something not understood...
-
Originally posted by moot
All I'd say about the matter are truisms and common sense - no unneeded waste, etc. which is what you're saying too.
There's no conclusion to be drawn from something not understood...
Sure there is, when money and political power are at play.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Sure there is, when money and political power are at play.
Gentlemen, here is the winner of all global warming arguments for both sides.
-
That's a truism :)
People will always tend towards good. Educated/wise ones more accurately so.
Financial or political power are just means. You have to be pretty myopic to see them as ends.
-
Originally posted by moot
That's a truism :)
People will always tend towards good. Educated/wise ones more accurately so.
Financial or political power are just means. You have to be pretty myopic to see them as ends.
To say that educated people are more inclined towards good over evil is just foolish.
-
supporting evidence?
-
Supporting evidence cited: History: Cavemen to yesterday.
-
this is why conversations with you go nowhere fast.
Homo sapiens follows the same rules of causality as animals. By good I meant the platonic sense of Good.
e.g. The "good" solution to a math problem, the "good" combination to a safe, the "good" sequence of actions in a given situation.
That's what I'm saying, all life long homo sapiens answers nature/reality's prompts for safe combinations, correctly or not.
Education, not the one you know in your particular city, state, country, in your life, but the one in the general sense of practical learning, is what provides you with the building blocks to answer those questions better and better.
So yes, it's as much of a no brainer as 2+2=4.
The least you know, the least you're likely to tend towards good.
(http://huygensgcms.gsfc.nasa.gov/galileo_drawings.gif)
(http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/contrib/saturn2e1.jpg)
(http://library.thinkquest.org/12659/media/solar_system/saturn/saturn.jpg)
Show me evidence that evil isn't just mistaken good intentions.
-
Originally posted by moot
this is why conversations with you go nowhere fast.
Homo sapiens follows the same rules of causality as animals. By good I meant the platonic sense of Good.
e.g. The "good" solution to a math problem, the "good" combination to a safe, the "good" sequence of actions in a given situation.
That's what I'm saying, all life long homo sapiens answers nature/reality's prompts for safe combinations, correctly or not.
Education, not the one you know in your particular city, state, country, in your life, but the one in the general sense of practical learning, is what provides you with the building blocks to answer those questions better and better.
Show me evidence that evil isn't just mistaken good intentions.
Are you serious? All of the uneducated people of the world can riot, kill every single person and animal in sight, lite fire to everything else in sight, and simultaneously set off every single nuke they can get their hands on and they still wouldn't even come to close to the amount of evil done to the world that educated people have done when they believe themselves to be good and correct.
Every single war, be it religious or political, everything done wrong to people or animals, and anything else has been at the hands of educated men who believe they are doing something good.
-
Good education may help some make good decisions. Education isn't automatically good as many of our more liberal institutions prove daily.
-
and conservative institutions do not?
(growing tired of this devisive liberal v. conservative crapola that keeps anything real from ever being accomplished)
-
addendum.
i would rather have learning institutions...even fallible ones.
what isnt fallible?
would it be better if everyone had street smarts or vice versa?
again, we dodge the issue.
-
Originally posted by JB88
and conservative institutions do not?
(growing tired of this devisive liberal v. conservative crapola that keeps anything real from ever being accomplished)
Having trouble trying to word this properly... Every way I can write is wrong to say.
You need to be careful in thinking that any education makes you right. Or that the actions YOU want to do are right themselves, even if you believe them to be right.
-
i agree. i am not meaning to suggest that scholarly education is better than life experience, but i would take one of those choices over the alternative any day of the week.
further, since when is inaction is okay when there is overwhelming evidence and logic which consistantly points toward an obvious, albeit difficult choice.
-
There is no universal concept of 'right' and 'wrong'. You fight for what you believe is right, with words or weapons. If you win you are right. All you need to do is take a long hard look at nature and this basic truth is obvious.
Intelligence, education and guns can give you an edge though.
-
Originally posted by majic
We could just put up some venitian blinds up between us and the sun.
And I bet Venice would donate them for free since they have so much at stake.
-
There is a difference here in what the term education means. It seems to me that a couple posters here are unsure of the difference between education and indoctrination.
Education teaches a person to think on their own, analyze and determine for themselves.
Indoctrination teaches you what to think.
At times the line can get very fuzzy in a classroom, particularly when the class is Social Studies and or History. A good teacher will broach subjects and point students to both sides of a situation. A poor one will simply spout their own political position.
One would hope that the "system" would be one of education, not indoctrination. Even so if it were a good "system", education , like ANY tool can be misused
-
Originally posted by JB88
and conservative institutions do not?
(growing tired of this devisive liberal v. conservative crapola that keeps anything real from ever being accomplished)
You really expect to get anything accomplished in this forum?
In real life there is a struggle in our nation among various self-interest groups with the federal government leading the pack.
-
jb88... I am reading you but you aren't saying anything. I have said from the beggining that I felt nature is the cause of global climate change one way or the other.
What are you saying? That we shouldn't intentionaly pollute? or that we should all stop driving.. or... something in between? spit it out.
Have the guts to tell us what needs to be done and why.. Have the guts to admit that you were swayed by the movie of a know liar and politician (invented the internet indeed!)
What part about that liars movie convinced you to... to what?
ITS THE SUN STUPID
lazs
-
Laser,
Look at Mav's and Viking's replies.
It's all a matter of purpose. What's your purpose?
Whatever it is, your plan to achieve it will be a success, proportionally to the accuracy of the knowledge you founded it on.
It might seem overly platonic, but that's the only definition of good I believe in that doesn't involve faith.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
jb88... I am reading you but you aren't saying anything. I have said from the beggining that I felt nature is the cause of global climate change one way or the other.
What are you saying? That we shouldn't intentionaly pollute? or that we should all stop driving.. or... something in between? spit it out.
Have the guts to tell us what needs to be done and why.. Have the guts to admit that you were swayed by the movie of a know liar and politician (invented the internet indeed!)
What part about that liars movie convinced you to... to what?
ITS THE SUN STUPID
lazs
guts? for what?
guts...lol.
and you wonder why i never take you seriously lasz.
-
I think that the reason you won't state what you believe is that you are afraid to look bad.
You claim that algors movie toched you deep inside and was irrefuteable. So spit it out..
What should we do and why?
Take me seriously or not.. at least I have the guts to say what I believe and why. I have seen who you "take seriously" and believe me when I say... I am glad you don't lump me in with them.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I think that the reason you won't state what you believe is that you are afraid to look bad.
You claim that algors movie toched you deep inside and was irrefuteable. So spit it out..
What should we do and why?
Take me seriously or not.. at least I have the guts to say what I believe and why. I have seen who you "take seriously" and believe me when I say... I am glad you don't lump me in with them.
lazs
show me where i said that lasz. show me where i said that it touched me inside. i said that "parts convinced me deeply" so? wasnt i saying how i felt?
and show me where i said that the movie was irrefutable. i said that some of the parts were good arguments. again. i said what i believe.
i have also said that irregardless of warming i feel that it is imperative that we discontinue polluting our planet. why? because it cannot possibly be healthy for it or us.
heres the thing lasz. i will be more than happy to converse with you on the subject at great length when you can act a bit less like a bully and more like someone who is actually interested in something that i have to say and/or an actual discourse or exchange of ideas.
i have lots of ideas about what we could do and i tend to be a person who IS more interested in solutions, but i dont think you are really all that interested in hearing them...if you were you would know that i state my opinions about things quite alot and you would certainly know that i will say them without fearing what canned tough guy acts like YOU might think.
perhaps you'd rather take your frustrations about your own life or your troubles out on me or others on this board. fine. but i really don't care to play your way and i am just not all that interested.
-
Moot here here!! Good answer discerning the difference between being Educated and Indoctrinated.
As one gets older....you tend to notice more about what is occuring around you. When you were young, struggling to raise a family most had little time but to work and worry about the status of their families. Leisure time was far between. Hopefully you were wise enough to gather some information on the way. Things that you were told that were fact when younger you find aren't always true. You tend to look up into a dark, clear, moonlit night during Winter and marvel at what you see. It should be at that time......if you really see what you are looking at.....how unimportant we all are. And how we are such a tiny speck in something we'll never quite fully understand. "With age comes Wisdom, with Wisdom comes Sorrow." See if you can comprehend the meaning of that quote. It's not the deep grieving kind of sorrow.....well..... just think about what that quote means.
Again......Nature will find a way. When it has had enough of us, we'll know.
And just as in the past.......life just might find a way. And I do hope it is better then the last. More intelligent.
-
This is a scientist that has changed their mind about Global Warming.
Allegre's second thoughts (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388)
T
-
ya, but she's a socialist. so she can't be trusted. (or so they say in these here parts)
-
88... so where am I being a tough guy and not allowing you to give your ideas? I have done nothing but ask you to tell me what should be done.
That is the thing. No one believes that we should pollute to no good end. We all pollute by simply existing. somewhere in between is a happy medium.
Some "solutions" cause more pollution than the so called problem in the first place.. if we all sat around campfires instead of our homes we would probly pollute a lot more... some primitive wastewater treatment plants use a lot less electricity and chemicals than do the state mandated highly advanced ones.
The EPA is loaded down with no nothing hippies and junk science... The whole man made global warming thing stinks of junk science and agenda.
I am sure it is not lost on people who read this that you are the one attempting to do the "bullying" here. the only difference is that you are doing it without any defense of your position.
I don't think asking you to state your position and solutions to a problem you claim exists is bullying in the least.
lazs
-
you win lasz.
good for you.
;)
-
Good manners trump curiousity?
-
Ok 88.. maybe you should read what your high priest Dr Alegre has to say on the subject tho. Maybe algore is not the best guy to listen too... he has an agenda and he is a known liar.
lazs
-
Prominent French Scientist turns skeptic:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388
Countering Al Gore’s propaganda piece:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=440049&in_page_id=1965
and
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Ok 88.. maybe you should read what your high priest Dr Alegre has to say on the subject tho. Maybe algore is not the best guy to listen too... he has an agenda and he is a known liar.
lazs
blank stare.
-
just out of curiousity...
who here has actually watched "an inconvenient truth"?
:confused:
-
What for?
-
well, i have been hearing lots and lots of people discounting it offhand and i am wondering if the same people who are slamming it have actually taken the time to watch it...if only to bolster their arguments against it.
i would imagine that you would agree moot that it always best to try to inform ourselves of both sides, or rather, the many sides of any issue before we begin to draw firm conclusions or act in a manner which might prematurely abort the validity of any arguement, its flaws yet unseen.
-
did anyone see "bowling for global warming" with Barbara Streisand and Alex Baldwin?
-
JB, having first hand knowledge of something is against the O'Club rules.
:cool:
hap
-
No JB88, I mean, what use would it be to know about it one way or another?
I don't mean to sound like I approve of (what's the word?) giving up-ism, but honestly, what if you knew? What would you do, concretely?
I'm all ears.. does anyone posting here have a way of countering global warming?
So if I had the boldness of not phrasing my reply to you with superfluous (but nonetheless frank) conversation manners, I'd've said it like (I think) lazs means to:
What are you going to do about it?
-
well moot... it takes all kinds.. the in the face kind like me and the "reasoned" kind like you but...
The point remains the same... there is something very fishy about the whole thing.. and... very dishonest..
One thing for sure...your method won't get any more answers than mine.
lazs
-
There's that reward by the british guy, so the public masses are already in on the open farming for creative problem solving ideas...
There's the guys who have studied this for years, I suppose a large enough sample of people to get a fair share of the entire spectrum of intellectual strength..
There's the politicians, who (to be fair) probably also have at least a few truly intent on getting an objective assessment, and a proper solution found and implemented...
So I guess the real question is: Is this a case where a few people could tip the scale?
Because, consider the powers (in a strictly problem solving sense) already at work... and then brainstorms like ours right here...
Our time and effort's better spent elsewhere, I think. Unless there's a closet Einstein no one's noticed.
-
lol
-
Well come on, speak your mind.. Global warming's no laughing matter is it?
-
Look at the monkey (http://plus.maths.org/issue34/outerspace/monkey.jpg)
Simba say 'give peace a chance' :D
-
moot... good luck on pinning one of the acolades down.
We can look at this on a strictly odds way... we can play the odds. the global climate scientists have been right a grand total of 0% of the time in their long range predictions and they predict massive climate change that will be caused by man..
The Farmers almanac has been right over 80% of the time in their long range weather predictions and they don't predict any real disasters.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
moot... good luck on pinning one of the acolades down.
We can look at this on a strictly odds way... we can play the odds. the global climate scientists have been right a grand total of 0% of the time in their long range predictions and they predict massive climate change that will be caused by man..
The Farmers almanac has been right over 80% of the time in their long range weather predictions and they don't predict any real disasters.
lazs
well, considering that global climate change (in terms of global warming) is a relatively new science, and taking into further consideration that some of the recent anomolies in global weather patterns and increased activity in violent meteoroligical activity have actually brought the possibility of global warming to the forefront and has swayed general opinion in favor of the possibility that it exists...i would say that you are wrong about the 0% accuraccy rate. the data only spans a short period of time and will take much longer to prove or disprove based on this data. thats a pretty bold statement, i would like to see you back that up, or convince me that they have been 0% accurate for any other reasons than a lack of longterm data.
as for the farmers almanac.
i found this particularly interesting. its a little snippet from their website.
Best Days
Here are a few of the most popular best days as published in the Farmers' Almanac. Each activity is followed by the best day of the current month.
It's widely believed by many long-time Almanac followers that when the Moon occupies a particular place in the Zodiac each day at 7:00 a.m. EST, it can play an important role in achieving the best possible results for certain activities.
As a service to our Web visitors, we share some of these best days each month. You can find more activities and get 12 months worth in the 2006 Farmers' Almanac sold in many stores throughout the US. Or, you can order a copy from our online store
--March 2007
• Bake 19, 20, 25-27
• Can Fruits and Vegetables 8, 9, 17
• Dry Fruits and Vegetables 10
• Cut Firewood 1, 2, 18-31
• Cut Hair to Increase Growth 18, 21, 22, 25-27
• Cut Hair to Retard Growth 6, 7, 10-12, 15, 16
• Mow to Increase Growth 1, 2, 18-31
• Mow to Retard Growth 3-17
• Castrate Farm Animals 10-18
• Harvest 11-17
• Prune Trees 8, 9, 13, 14
• Wean 10-18
• Hunt 18-24
• Fish Mornings: 25, 26, 27 Evenings: No Best Days
• Quit a Habit or Smoking 3-5, 10-12, 15, 16
i suppose you think that the zodiac is a good indicator for global warming as well?
should i be suggesting that you connect with your high priest astrologer when considering your positions on these matters?
as for the article that started this thread, the author took great pains to suggest that there were alternate theories as to why mars is undergoing climate change and provides a plausible explaination which involves the lack of a moon and shifts in its axis...you read that right? or did you just jump on the bandwagon and take a contrary position because the very thought of you having to sacrifice your outmoded concepts for new ideas a bit too hard to swallow?
is it not possible that there are other ways to create warming in an amosphere?
the issue is larger than just global warming btw. its about limited resources and the management of those resources in a way which will reduce the potential for danger, both now and in the future.
as for your question moot.
what am i doing about it? right now i am reading both sides. right now i am trying to convince others that environmentalism is deeper than just an issue of global warming. its about CONSERVATION.
i have never been able to understand how anyone who considers themselves a conservative could be so quick to spend the limited material that this earth has given us for things that mean so very little to so few.
its not the most being done around here, but it certainly ain't the least and it ain't half empty.
-
JB88,
You (we) know definitely neither that we're the cause, nor that we're not the cause.
We don't know how it works, (and therefore) nor how to fix it.
Do we need to know what the problem is, and/or what the solution is, to apply common sense like not wasting, and keeping things in good shape?
I don't think so. In fact the two are the same methods but different issues.
The least you waste, the more "buying" power you have left.. everyone knows that.
By analogy, would you know, if a neuroscientist BS'ed you, that you'd just been made to agree to something that's BS?
Would anything else than (with a regular brain and regular resources) as much or more than the amount of time and work spent by the existing specialists guarantee certainty about the whole matter?
If you want to know the truth, you'll have to find it yourself, (i.e. not just repeating anyone else's reports), and correct me if I'm wrong, you have a lot of work to do.. this isn't arts and crafts... it's on the same order as worldwide geopolitics.
It makes good conversation, but who here is qualified authority?
It's like (just poking at you laser.. sort of) lasersailor saying architectural this or that is true or false, because he read transcripts off a world renowned architectural egghead.
We can just talk, and it's going to stay talk, unless we admit we're ready to take action without anything more than speculation to back it up.
So like I was asking you - what are you going to do about it?
It's not being brash or proving you wrong or uninformed or foolish, it's really the only thing I'm interested in: constructive action.
-
Originally posted by moot
JB88,
You (we) know definitely neither that we're the cause, nor that we're not the cause.
We don't know how it works, (and therefore) nor how to fix it.
Do we need to know what the problem is, and/or what the solution is, to apply common sense like not wasting, and keeping things in good shape?
I don't think so. In fact the two are the same methods but different issues.
By analogy, would you know, if a neuroscientist BS'ed you, that you'd just been made to agree to something that's BS?
Would anything else than (with a regular brain and regular resources) as much or more than the amount of time and work spent by the existing specialists guarantee certainty about the whole matter?
If you want to know the truth, you'll have to find it yourself, (i.e. not just repeating anyone else's reports), and correct me if I'm wrong, you have a lot of work to do.. this isn't arts and crafts... it's on the same order as worldwide geopolitics.
It makes good conversation, but who here is qualified authority?
i am all for common sense moot.
i am also all for letting the proponents of global warming speak and be heard because they have been trying to get thier message out for a long time and it is only now becoming evident that there may be something to it.
i am also for the creation of opposing theories, but i think that it is foolhardy to dismiss the work of all of the original few scientists who have fought hard to bring it to the forefront because one scientist comes up with a pretty thin theory, or because one of the messengers is politically unpopular with a segment of the population who also happens to side more often with creationists than i am generally comfortable with.
gore is doing something about it. i respect that. i dont see his stance on global warming as a political issue. i see it as a conservation issue. one that teddy roosevelt might be better at delivering, but deliver it he would. i truly believe that.
conversation is the precursor to action...
so yes. i think it matters. even here.
-
I'm only saying it is not feasible to reach a real conclusion without, you know.. actually doing the research first-hand :)
So far, there is no doctor for us to reliably take a diagnosis from, so I'm just not going to make a hypochondriac out of myself about it.
I could start the proverbial med school studies to make my own diagnosis, but it's just not feasible.
There's too much politics involved to trust anyone enough; just like the oil market, and its direct relations and dependent sectors, are "rigged".
-
Originally posted by moot
Well come on, speak your mind.. Global warming's no laughing matter is it?
Sure thing...no laughing matter.
They say,
"The earth is warming...we know this,
why the earth is warming is in debate."
My question is, why not clean our act up and maybe save some coastline/glaciers/crops/species while we're at it?
What do we have to lose?
Enlighten me...
-
Originally posted by moot
I'm only saying it is not feasible to reach a real conclusion without, you know.. actually doing the research first-hand :)
i am not an environmental scientist. i am an artist.
people seem to find value in my doing it without having to be doing it themselves. you should be grateful for that. trust me.
;)
-
JB88.. why do you try to make this into something it's not? Or rather, try to deduce something from what I've said, which I don't think?
I'm only saying we can talk all we want, but we will have no effect. I'm not saying you or anyone should not feel it worthwhile to take the opportunity to learn more rather than less.
I'm agnostic, as it were. All I care for is concrete results, and I see none on this matter.
Dadano - have we met? "Enlighten" yourself.
-
Originally posted by moot
JB88.. why do you try to make this into something it's not? Or rather, try to deduce something from what I've said, which I don't think?
I'm only saying we can talk all we want, but we will have no effect. I'm not saying you or anyone should not feel it worthwhile to take the opportunity to learn more rather than less.
I'm agnostic, as it were. All I care for is concrete results, and I see none on this matter.
and i disagree.
now that we have that settled. you can have the bunny.
-
Well hold that thought, and let me know the next time the subject comes up, why there is something concrete to gain from discussing the matter here.
-
Originally posted by moot
JB88.. why do you try to make this into something it's not? Or rather, try to deduce something from what I've said, which I don't think?
I'm only saying we can talk all we want, but we will have no effect. I'm not saying you or anyone should not feel it worthwhile to take the opportunity to learn more rather than less.
I'm agnostic, as it were. All I care for is concrete results, and I see none on this matter.
Dadano - have we met? "Enlighten" yourself.
Now now...I was simply seeking a thoughtful argument, not philosophical guidance:aok
BTW...nice to meet ya MOOT
-
Solar activity is measured into the Earth equation. The effects are rather small.
On Mars, mostly deprived of atmosphere (and thereby greenhouse gases), Solar activity will weight a lot more.
And guess what. Since colonizing Mars is a pet speculation project, the main trick is actually to apply greenhouse gases in enough quantity to heat the atmosphere up to acceptable temperatures.
-
Originally posted by JB88
thesis regarding the use of the farmer's almanac and it's referrance to the zodiac
probably not too different from the "scientific method" applied to the all of the natural sciences beginning with darwinism and this offshoot. I'd bet we can obtain similar results by blindfolding you and giving you some darts and a dartboard labelled warming trend, cooling trend, ice age and polar ice caps meltdown.
-
Originally posted by JB88
just out of curiousity...
who here has actually watched "an inconvenient truth"?
:confused:
While sitting comfortably on what is here called the 'alarmistlibrulz' side, I saw it and wasn't impressed... most of the screen time is more an advertising for the author than the subject itself.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
While sitting comfortably on what is here called the 'alarmistlibrulz' side, I saw it and wasn't impressed... most of the screen time is more an advertising for the author than the subject itself.
little wonder
-
storch & I agree...
EVERYONE, TO THE BOMB SHELTERS, NOW!!!!
:D
-
why do you look so angry in your avatar, saw?
-
That isn't me, I have more hair!
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
storch & I agree...
EVERYONE, TO THE BOMB SHELTERS, NOW!!!!
:D
Silly humans. Bomb shelters? Hehe! Only me and The Brain hold the real answer.
(I snuffed Pinky :) )
-
88.. I think you missed the point again. I don't care what the farmers almanac uses to predict the weather.... I simply said that since the "man made global warming" "scientists" are so wrong and the almanac so right... why not go with the odds and listen to the people with the good track record?
You also act like we are using up the earths resources... using them up. We have more trees and vegetation than we had a hundred years ago... more coal has been discovered than we thought existed 100 years ago... for all we know... if the democrats were to let us explore... we might find even bigger deposits of oil than are known to exist... what are we "using up"?
We are conserving. We are often replacing or discovering more of what we use. Course.... "conservation" is a pretty meaningless term or... at least, one that varies in degree wildly like all the other "scientific" terms you acolytes of the man made global warming religion use... "significant" "massive" "almost certainly"..
You are losing the people with your shrill and shrew message. The voice of reason is coming out.. You dismiss any simple explanation.. ITS THE SUN STUPID
And why wouldn't it be? we don't control the sun.. it isn't some zillion watt bulb that glows with the same intensity till it burns out. Of course it is going to get stronger and weaker from time to time and be unpredictable in how it does it to a great extent.
How can you pass off the evidence that it makes mars hotter at the exact time it makes us hotter? In that case...you are a scientist that believes in coincidence? No wonder you are losing believers.
Someone asked... what have we got to lose... I would put forth MTBE as an example of "scientists" coming up with a hasty solution based on panic and not enough data... I would put forth the DDT ban...
But most of all... we lose the ability to reason.. moot hints at this...if we all become acolytes at these chalatans alter... then we lose the ability to do real research... these guys are proving it every day... they are trying to stiffle and bully anyone who doesn't tow the "man made global warming" line.
Every bill you get may be increased 20% from your electrical to your water to your sewer based on junk science.. There are countless ways we can "lose" if we don't approach this from a reasoned way.
lazs
-
Lazs, out of memory, the sun's "heat up" recently was accounted to some 4% of the total change.
And this:
"You also act like we are using up the earths resources... using them up. We have more trees and vegetation than we had a hundred years ago"
Is absolute nonsense.
-
nope... the total is the more.
Also.. back in the 70's scientists felt that we were using up the earths resources... One scientist strayed from that religion and said that he thought it was not possible.. he challenged the group to make a list of ten resources that would not be gone but would only show a decrease in ten years time. All ten are more than what was known then.
Don't ask me to link to the above cause I can't.. it is a memory... I think it is true hopefully someone will know about it. In any case... name something we have run out of?
We are an arrogant race.. we feel we are more powerful than nature and that the world revolves around us.. Hell.. we can build a dam.. we can clear cut a forest or strip mine a valley... it always recovers tho. For all we know there are vast oil fields under the ocean waiting to be found... most believe this to be true.
Oil is not dinosour juice as the scientists once told us.. they don't know what it is it seems.. they don't know how much is being made by nature every day compared to how much we are using.
They are wrong a lot.. they change their minds based on new evidence.. that is fine but... it seems obvious that anytime they make a prediction based on theory... it should be simply looked at as something to watch and not base ones life on. They are wrong too often. they understand too little of the major natural forces that control the planet.
lazs
-
Ok, so I am punting a topic, but there's a valid addition to the discussion:
This August's Scientific American issue talks covers Global Warming, five writers are in on it.
At the end of a paragraph at the end of the page 72 text, it is noted in two sentences, that in spring-2007, a major research announcement found that the rate of "atmospheric forcing causing warming" for 2000-2004 was triple the rate found in the decade 1990-2000.
The current IPCC findings for warming, and for crisis warnings, were based on the lower 1990-2000 observed rates.
So is this just another spike in the noise, or is this piece of data really unprecedented, for once? Or is this piece of data no more conclusive than everything we've seen so far either?
"But the IPCC scientists made their assessment before a study published online this past April in the 'Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA' reported the worldwide carbon dioxide emissions between 2000-2004 increased at three times the rate of the 1990s -- from 1.1 to 3.2 percent a year. In other words, the actual global emissions since 2000 grew faster than those projected in the highest of the scenarios developed by the IPCC.
That research indicates that the situation is more dire than even the bleak IPCC assessment forecasts."
Link (http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=9D42D8EA-2B35-221B-6B2207C64175B773)
-
so the co2 tripled but the temp stayed the same or went down?
lazs
-
Always liked ol Vin but never knew his thinking on the subject was so close to mine.
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/8269987.html
Of note is that he points out the religious fervor of the "man made global...." er.... "climate change" acolytes and..
the fact that nature always trumps what we do. In the 70's they were telling us that the particulates from our cars and factories were blotting out the sun and that we were causing the next ice age... due by 1999... never mind what the sun was doing...
Ol Vin pretty much nails it.
I have asked repeatedly what the global warming religious left here would have us do... what is the cure? I got nothing except change out some lightbulbs to the mercury filled ones... and maybe suggest that I be more careful... maybe not waste any more than their high priest algore.
Ol Vin has the courage to come right out and tell us what needs to be done tho.. what we need to do. If this is as serious as is claimed by hortlund and angus and a few others... we need to bite the bullet and do as Vin says.
Sure...he's a libertarian and not really a lefty like most all the other true believers but...
lazs
-
Well, I had heard the hypothesis that the temperature lags behind the actual GW-causing stuff repeated a lot. Either way, if this spike has no precedent, then it is definitely interesting.
I was just curious if this might be something new, or just another attempt to get a knee-jerk out of the mostly jaded/fear-mongering-saturated public. I don't have time to research something like this anymore, so I asked supposing someone would know.
-
I don't know.. it sounds to me... smells like... fear and desperation. Odd tho... that kind of thing just makes us doubters say... "see... they can't predict squat."
We end up asking... "eggs... good for us today or bad for us?"
I don't think the old globe is willing to give up all its secrets to these clowns just yet. It may have some nasty and some pleasant surprises in store for us... just like it always has since the beginning.
lazs
-
The global warming hysteria will be remembered as one of those episodes of "the madness of crowds" which saw bands of flagellants wandering Europe urging folks to finish work on those cathedrals real soon because the world was going to come to an end at the millennium, in 1,000 A.D., and the minor panic of Oct. 30, 1938, when numerous radio listeners were taken in by the realistic Orson Welles broadcast of "The War of the Worlds."
Word.
-
I'm just curious by nature, lazs.. It makes no difference to me, as even if I didn't have more than enough other things to keep me occupied, GW won't be worth worrying about until it's actualy understood as opposed to chicken-littled about..
The triple figure sounded like something new, assuming it isn't just more reaching, like I said.
-
Yep...I can't believe that people are so selfish that they won't allow a little soot on their lawns or in their lungs to avert this global warming disaster!!!
I think the all knowing scientists should just make a volcano or ten erupt.
lazs
-
In a way.. I am just like you on the thing... I simply notice that the left is solidly behind the whole thing and know that if they are behind it...
A great deal of dishonesty and false panic exists. I think that they are desperate at this point since the signs seem to be pointing at a global cooling trend coming up.. less solar activity...temp will follow.. if they want to get their socialist programs in and if the "scientists" want to make their bones...
They better do it quick before mother nature makes fools of em....
again.
they need to "do something" to say they have reduced co2 by some infintesimal but still exageratted amount before mother nature takes over so that they can say...
"see.. we saved the world."
lazs
-
"nope... the total is the more."
No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation
:(
-
The winners are, - again, an Icelandic farmboy and 3 Welshmen :)
Farmboy built a carburettor who is very much more fuel efficient, and the Welshmen built a filter that seperates carbon into...water.
Then the "water" is used onwards in some biological process involving algis.
Funny part is that it means that you can go on burning fossil fuels, hehehe.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Yep...I can't believe that people are so selfish that they won't allow a little soot on their lawns or in their lungs to avert this global warming disaster!!!
I think the all knowing scientists should just make a volcano or ten erupt.
lazs
Well, I for one wont just stand idly by. I have plans to trade in my current truck for a black smoke bellowing behemoth of a diesel. I shall also consume massive quantities of beer and pinto beans, just to stink the air a little further. ITS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, after all!
-
What are you talking about angus? are you saying someone invented a new carb? In this world of computer controled fuel injection that seems a step backwards.
The gold rush is on. Guys here are converting algae into fuel at a cost of about $50 a gallon...mostly "administrative cost" all paid for with grants which are really.....
tax payers money. the flim flam men and carpetbaggers are about to bust out at the seams.
Anyone recall the "solar hot water heater" flim flam men of the 80's? not a one of those crap systems is still working.. many expensive roofs were destroyed by em ta boot.
lazs
-
Yup! Bloody brilliant too, and it's on the last steps before mass production.
It's been, IMHO a little hush-hush about it, and I am not sure their website is even in English yet, - maybe understandable.
I know one of their engineers (well he is in the design and manufacture, as a co-worker and craftsman) and he explained the concept to me.
I also know the guy who did the setup for initial emission tests. (computer setup)
Anyway, the design is simple (mechanichal) and bloody brilliant. Works on all systems (with some little adaptions I presume), - small engines (mower etc), car engines (both diesel and petrol), two-stroke, four-stroke, etc etc.
Emissions of a typical car engine, especially regarding CO (not CO2) go low enough for a "garage suicide" to be impossible. Fuel efficiency is much more (20%+) and power from the same fuel burn is also increased.
20% here, and another 20 there add up nicely.
Reliability is estimated to be better than any systems known, and the costs are low.
The trick is called Total Combustion Technology, and the english abbreviation is TCT.
http://www.fjolblendir.is/
No english version. They are now dealing with mass producers, - I think Honda will be involved, and there are discussions with the chinese.
So, tell mr. Branson ;)
-
We can solve 3 global problems in a single afternoon.
We can lower the global temperature, end Islamic terrorism, and reduce our nuclear weapons stockpile with one massive salvo.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
We can solve 3 global problems in a single afternoon.
We can lower the global temperature, end Islamic terrorism, and reduce our nuclear weapons stockpile with one massive salvo.
That's sig material. :lol
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
We can solve 3 global problems in a single afternoon.
We can lower the global temperature, end Islamic terrorism, and reduce our nuclear weapons stockpile with one massive salvo.
I think first it would get really really warm someplace special, then eventually it will get cooler.
-
I think that we can also throw about 2000 of these brand new "climate scientists" and "climate correspondents" into live volcanoes to get the volcanoes to erupt.. all good things worth trying.. after all...
We have to do something!!!!.
I like the nuke solution tho.. it seems doable and reasonable.. sand to glass... particles in the air.
If it gets too cold we can just let the scientists speak and speak and speak and we can simply make more co2.
we are in the drivers seat here... why worry about mother nature at all?
pollution is the solution.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
Yup! Bloody brilliant too, and it's on the last steps before mass production.
It's been, IMHO a little hush-hush about it, and I am not sure their website is even in English yet, - maybe understandable.
I know one of their engineers (well he is in the design and manufacture, as a co-worker and craftsman) and he explained the concept to me.
I also know the guy who did the setup for initial emission tests. (computer setup)
Anyway, the design is simple (mechanichal) and bloody brilliant. Works on all systems (with some little adaptions I presume), - small engines (mower etc), car engines (both diesel and petrol), two-stroke, four-stroke, etc etc.
Emissions of a typical car engine, especially regarding CO (not CO2) go low enough for a "garage suicide" to be impossible. Fuel efficiency is much more (20%+) and power from the same fuel burn is also increased.
20% here, and another 20 there add up nicely.
Reliability is estimated to be better than any systems known, and the costs are low.
The trick is called Total Combustion Technology, and the english abbreviation is TCT.
http://www.fjolblendir.is/
No english version. They are now dealing with mass producers, - I think Honda will be involved, and there are discussions with the chinese.
So, tell mr. Branson :)
What little in english they did have stated specifically that this was a replacement for small engine carbs.......
TCT - "Total Combustion Technology" - is a new and unique patented fuel system (Carburetor) for small off road engines, designed to replace the conventional Carburetor.
........I can't see this doing more for the automotive industry than the computer chip and fuel injection already have.
Originally posted by Angus
car engines (both diesel and petrol)
[/B]
Diesel engines must be injected to fun on current #2 fuel oil, AFIK, so no help there either.
What will this little gem do to the price of a lawn mower????:rolleyes:
-
i already invented the 100 MPG carburetor, the big oil companies are paying me big money to keep it off the market.
-
Originally posted by RetroVirus
Wrong
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml
Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak to Explain Global Warming
September 13, 2006
BOULDER—Changes in the Sun's brightness over the past millennium have had only a small effect on Earth's climate, according to a review of existing results and new calculations performed by researchers in the United States, Switzerland, and Germany.
And that explains Mars' (and Jupiter's) warming how? They are globes, they are warming...
-
Ask Uranus (not even a pun).
-
But where is that warming?
(http://science.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/essd/atmos_temps/tropo_temp.gif)
-
Oh, here is not global, but local warming for my bike before OMW to work in last february. It is 7:30 AM and -20°C.
(http://www.rajavirasto.net/aamu.jpg)
-
Originally posted by pallero
But where is that warming?
Pretty much all over you, if you haven't noticed. Southern Finland doesn't really have a winter anymore; Hardly any snow. Some years ago it was possible to build a snow fort and it could've lasted through the winter. Not anymore. New insect species have spread to southern Finland due to warmer weather and some of the species that used to exist only in the south have spread further north.
Meanwhile every year more people have died to heat in central and southern Europe. Floods are also becoming more frequent.
The temperature is slowly increasing all over the world. I'd say the sun has a bigger part in it than the global warming activists are willing to admit. Otherwise we'd be still in the ice age, or did I miss an existence of 10 000 year old industry?
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Pretty much all over you, if you haven't noticed. Southern Finland doesn't really have a winter anymore; Hardly any snow. Some years ago it was possible to build a snow fort and it could've lasted through the winter. Not anymore. New insect species have spread to southern Finland due to warmer weather and some of the species that used to exist only in the south have spread further north.
Meanwhile every year more people have died to heat in central and southern Europe. Floods are also becoming more frequent.
The temperature is slowly increasing all over the world. I'd say the sun has a bigger part in it than the global warming activists are willing to admit. Otherwise we'd be still in the ice age, or did I miss an existence of 10 000 year old industry?
Well, i dont think so.
Read this, so you get the idea. *click* (http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/ilmuutos.htm)
And the same in english here *click* (http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/globwarm.htm)
-
Southern Finland doesn't really have a winter anymore;
Want Winter? see Athens
South-eastern Europe is suffering its worst winter for decades.
source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1745867.stm)
Sunday, 6 January, 2002, 17:28 GMT
Tourists visiting Athens have some rare shots for their holiday albums - snow settling around the Acropolis and on the palm trees in the centre of the city.
The authorities have declared a state of civil emergency in what the Prime Minister, Costas Simitis, has described as the worst cold weather in almost 40 years.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1745000/images/_1745867_acropolis150.jpg)
Athens is not used to this kind of weather
Athenians are simply not used to coping with this kind of weather.
A 70-year-old woman died in the city after she apparently got lost in the snow and was unable to find her way home.
Or enjoy beautiful Kiev
Europe's Winter Death Toll Rises As Temperatures Dip Again
source (http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Europes_Winter_Death_Toll_Rises_As_Temperatures_Dip_Again.html)
copyright AFP
by Staff Writers
Kiev, Ukraine (AFP) Feb 06, 2006
Polish and Ukrainian authorities on Monday revised upwards the human toll from the freezing weather that has gripped eastern Europe since the beginning of the year as temperatures plummeted again.
Following the deaths of eight people in the previous 24 hours, 738 people had succumbed to the intense cold since mid-January, the Ukrainian health ministry said.
-
damn them, they have stole my beautiful snow!
-
It would melt quickly in Rome now :D
-
It won't touch the price of a lawn mower very much.
Works on any size of engine, but the marketing starts with the smaller ones. More items.
Oh, and as far as I know, it beats the computer chips hands down. Simpler too.
-
i have figured out this "climate change", if it's colder it's just local, but if it's warmer it's caused by man and it's the end of the world unless we do something NOW.
is that close?
-
Ummm...no.
The combined "local" that is getting warmer is very much bigger than the combined "local spikes" of coldness.
If you take the mass into account, the difference is very much more marked.
-
The ONLY solution to "man made global warming" is to get rid of the initial problem.......man.
6.5 BILLION people living on this rock and that number has sky rocketed over the last 100 years or so.
How do you make 6.5 billion people all care about the enviroment when half that population can't even feed itself without help from the industrialized countries?
Increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere??? Well no kidding. That's what happens when a person breaths. It's not SUV's and crap like that that's problem. It's the shear amount of people living on this rock that's the problem.
If we as a species want to survive then some DRASTIC measures will need to take place. A couple of nukes in certain locations around the world would do more to combat global warming than anything else just by getting rid of a couple of billion people.
Think about it.
-
Looking at world temps it appears that the temp is leveling off and even going down some.. which makes sense seeing as how solar activity (not solar brightness) has gone down.
the discredited 2006 smear study about solar brightness has nothing to do with solar activity such as sunspots and solar wind and even cloud cover.
But.. temp is leveling off.. it is even going down... the religious left is in a panic... they are saying more and more outrageous things every day...
But they can't explain... co2 follows temp not leads it... the sun activity leads not follows and the whole universe is heating up not just their office at the paper.
There has always been a percent of scientists who were willing to spout some exaggerated alarmist doom and gloom scenario to get attention..
It is just now that, with the left in control of almost all the journalism and grant money.. these guys are really getting more than thier 15 minutes of fame.. and.. it is seductive... everyone is jumping on the band wagon.
When it cools down in a few years and/or some real idea of what climate change and the models are proved bunk...
Most of the legitimate scientists who have bought into co2 causing the warming and pretended algore wasn't a fat blowhard with his head up his but... most of these guys are gonna wake up with a religious zeal hangover and a red face.
lazs
-
Agreed Human pollutant effects on global warming is at best just a theory.
But. unless he haveseveral active volcanoes in the Notheast nobody knows about.
Id say we are having an effect on air quality
(http://www.esa.int/export/images/pollution_global_L.jpg)
Based on 18 months of Envisat observations, this high-resolution global atmospheric map of nitrogen dioxide pollution makes clear just how human activities impact air quality.
-
I very much believe we can have an effect on air quality.. they less inversion in an area the worse it is too... if we insist on living in areas that don't self clean we will have some pretty bad air there.. the indians reported smog in los angles valley from simple bonfires.
angus... I use an electric lawn mower.
lazs
-
And your electrics are from fossil-fuel plants?
With all those small engines milling around, a very much better carb will do good use at least.
-
There is only so much energy available in a gallon of gasoline, alcohol, or diesel.
Diesels cannot use a carburetor of any kind because the have no intake manifold vacuum and because it is the injection of diesel fuel that starts combustion, ans a diesel has no ignition system.
The most you can do is burn 100% of the gasoline or alcohol that you put in. To do that, you have to have a perfect ignition system, a lot of compression, and a perfect air to fuel ratio (about 14.7:1 for most gasoline, and about 7.7:1 for methanol) and perfect atomization. A carburetor MIGHT be able to create the perfect air to fuel ratio, under a very narrow set of conditions, with one blend of gasoline. It also MIGHT be able to create perfect atomization, under a very narrow set of conditions. Outside those conditions it can't do it. And even with high speed computers, a ton of feedback sensors, and high fuel pressure, electronic fuel injection never achieves the perfect air fuel ratio or perfect atomization. I've spent the last near 30 years of my life working on fuel injection and carburetors, I'm convinced there will have to be breakthroughs we won't see for a couple more decades before we achieve perfect combustion, or even get close.
-
So, smart one:
"Looking at world temps it appears that the temp is leveling off and even going down some.. which makes sense seeing as how solar activity (not solar brightness) has gone down."
Why does that not show on the polar caps (which have a record breaking melting like,,,every year) or at least the ocean temperature (which should cool from the molten ice mixing with it)
Just lag?
-
"There is only so much energy available in a gallon of gasoline, alcohol, or diesel.
Diesels cannot use a carburetor of any kind because the have no intake manifold vacuum and because it is the injection of diesel fuel that starts combustion, ans a diesel has no ignition system."
Firstly, a normal engine uses only a part of the available energy.
Secondly, (my fault), this "carb" would better be named something else. It is very much more related to the diesel injection system for that sake.
Thirdly, wouldn't it not be correct to say that it is the compression of the diesel fumes that causes the combustion. That's what I got taught.
-
Originally posted by Angus
"There is only so much energy available in a gallon of gasoline, alcohol, or diesel.
Diesels cannot use a carburetor of any kind because the have no intake manifold vacuum and because it is the injection of diesel fuel that starts combustion, ans a diesel has no ignition system."
Firstly, a normal engine uses only a part of the available energy.
Secondly, (my fault), this "carb" would better be named something else. It is very much more related to the diesel injection system for that sake.
Thirdly, wouldn't it not be correct to say that it is the compression of the diesel fumes that causes the combustion. That's what I got taught.
Angus,
I'm fully aware that an engine uses only part of the energy in a gallon of fuel. I build race engines for a living, I spend most all of my waking moments looking for a way to make more efficient use of the air and fuel I can get into my engines. That is why I stated that perfect combustion has not yet been achieved, not even close. It may never be, we may move on to another form of power.
It is actually more correct to say that an engine only gets a percentage of the energy out of a gallon of fuel during combustion, because much of the energy that does get taken out is "wasted" in heat dumped into the coolant system and blown out the exhaust, as well as friction, and power used to keep the engine operating.
Knowing what I know about carburetors, but not having been to the site, I was sure it wasn't actually a carburetor, and I'm not at all surprised it is kin to fuel injection. I figured there was some sort of communication issue there.
Actually, in a diesel, you have super heated compressed air (most diesels have a compression ratio of 22:1 or more, where as most gasoline engines have 10:1 or less compression), and the injection of diesel fuel under fairly high pressure is the actual cause of combustion. That is why timing diesel injection is like ignition timing in a gasoline or alcohol fueled engine. In a diesel it is called "line timing". To a certain extent, you can increase line timing like you'd advance the ignition timing on a gasoline or alcohol fueled engine and gain power.
Unlike a gasoline or alcohol fueled engine, you can turn up the fuel pressure and/or volume on a diesel and make more power with the same amount of air and the same RPM. Fooling with my tractor, I used to "jazz" the injector pump (increase the fuel pressure and volume), and turn up the line timing (advance it about 4-6 degrees), I had a pretty stout tractor! Used to do the same thing to the Detroit Diesel in a truck I drove for a while. When I got serious about it, I put about 10% methanol in it.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Welshmen built a filter that seperates carbon into...water.
How do you "separate" carbon into water? Carbon is a basic chemical element and cannot be broken down without a nuclear process, like a particle collision in a collider-ring.
Did this welshman also invent cold-fusion for his "filter"? If not, I'm not buying it.
-
The heat?
From the high compession, and BAM.
Anyway, if if you're interested, I can link you to these guys. Maybe you can crew on something?
-
Originally posted by Angus
The heat?
From the high compession, and BAM.
Anyway, if if you're interested, I can link you to these guys. Maybe you can crew on something?
Yeah, it's fuel injected into heat that makes a diesel work. See, if the fuel was already in there, you couldn't control WHEN combustion occurred. It is the injection of the fuel that controls when combustion occurs in a diesel.
Honestly, I doubt I'd do them any good. I'm just an engine builder (I sometimes drive, and I build the transmissions and rear ends as well as crew the cars) not an engineer. Shoot, I buy my carburetors ($1K for a Holley 4 barrel! from a friend to) and my fuel injection stuff (Kinsler fuel injection), because I know were my strengths and weaknesses are.
What those guys need, if this is for real, is an engineer with education in combustion and emissions. One of the best racers ever was a guy named John Lingenfelter, he could make power like few others. He held a degree in engineering, his specialty was actually emissions, I think he got it on a scholarship from International Harvester or something like that. He was injured in a race several years ago, and lingered for over a year before he died. Those guys need someone like Lingenfelter, unfortunately, guys like him happen once in a great while.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Diesels cannot use a carburetor of any kind because the have no intake manifold vacuum
??? ....ah, how do the diesels that are not turbocharged or supercharged get air into the cylinder?
-
Originally posted by john9001
??? ....ah, how do the diesels that are not turbocharged or supercharged get air into the cylinder?
Plain atmospheric pressure. A diesel has no air metering system, no throttle blade at all. The intake on a naturally aspirated diesel is simply open, the only restriction at all is the air filter.
A diesel is throttled by fuel control. It can have all the air it wants all the time, you add as much fuel as is required to make the RPM and power you want. The accelerator pedal is linked to the injector pump as opposed to any sort of throttle body. On computer controlled diesels, it is only connected to throttle position sensors that send data to the computer that controls the fuel system.
A gasoline or alcohol fueled engine has a throttle that meters air, and therefore when the throttle is closed, or semi closed, there is an actual vacuum created.
The older diesel vehicles (light trucks and passenger cars) had vacuum pumps in order to operate vacuum driven accessories and vacuum modulators on automatic transmissions. Also, they use hydraulic brake boosters, driven off the power steering pump, as opposed to vacuum boosters. GM at one time had another solution, called the "power master", it was an electric brake booster. It was used on some diesel passenger cars, and the last 2 1/2 years of the Buick Grand National. It is very unreliable junk. Glad my 84 TType has hydraboost.
-
how do the gas engines that are not turbocharged or supercharged get air into the cylinder?
-
Originally posted by john9001
how do the gas engines that are not turbocharged or supercharged get air into the cylinder?
It sort of...sucks.
And for you Virgil, - the design is already built and tested. It's been tested on various systems for several years.
And on diesel combustion,,,and the heat: you are referring to pressure occuring heat?
-
I covered that. Read above. Gasoline and alcohol engines throttle air, they restrict the air as it comes in, thereby creating a vacuum. It is the vacuum created by the restriction, that creates the pressure drop across an orifice that makes carburetion work.
-
Oh, too fast to hit the button.
Oh, you have an answer. Ok. Good.
I just wanted to add, is it therefore that diesels have a slight "lag". Normally takes you (well, I have mostly old engines...but?) some rotations before the injection pump has built up enough pressure to start spraying out through the nozzles right?
(I hope I have the right english terms)
As for the design, I was going to say that it has been tested excessively with fuel economy as well as emission, and they claim some impressive results. The computer guy who checked the equipment on the emission and exhaust tests didn't belive his eyes. And the design is claimed to be useable from anything from small to...big big.
It's a bit of a different concept. I won't get it all explained to me, but I have the basics. Much closer to a diesel than a carb definately. Let's say that it's a new approach to how to break up the fuel into very small particles mixed with air, that's the goal anyway, but very very well, and in a mechanical way. All-way Newton AFAIK. And the guy is, or used to be a motorcycle geek.
-
It really depends on the type of fuel system the diesel has. Most PURE mechanical diesels do have some lag or hesitation, simply because it takes a bit for the fuel system to respond to the throttle changes. The new computer controlled diesels all but eliminate the problem, because the fuel system runs at high pressure and is high volume capable all the time, and the injectors are electronically controlled. The same applies to turbocharged gasoline or alcohol fueled engines with electronic fuel injection.
At one time, Kinsler fuel injection had a really neat, concise description of how constant flow mechanical fuel injection worked, what the drawbacks were, and how to over come or reduce them. Older purely mechanical diesels are constant flow, as are the old racing gasoline and alcohol injectors. The only difference is the diesel system only throttles fuel, where as the gasoline or alcohol systems throttle air and fuel. Kinsler may have the article on their website. I had kinsler do my old Crower/Mckay system I ran on an alcohol big block Chevy. Those guys taught me a lot.
-
angus... isn't the total of ice in both the north and the south the same or increasing? The ice in the north is a smaller amount and prone to rapid changes while the ice in the south is actually thickening.
Look at the temp graphs and you will see the temp leveling off and even dropping.
lazs
-
Nope.
N-Cap is melting very fast now. Greenland is delivering slabs and opening up areas not seen since ancient times.
S-pole is dropping slabs in the Gore-style.
Sucks!
-
BTW, the amount of thermal energy in the sea should not be overlooked.
-
Look to the planet Venus and see what Global Warming does.
-
Originally posted by Terror
According to the scientist in this article, since Mars is also warming, it's strong evidence that "global warming" is caused by SOLAR activity and not as much man-made activity....
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html)
Seems to be a logical conclusion....
Terror
Great!. Wife blames me for everything and now this!
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Look to the planet Venus and see what Global Warming does.
True point. Venus, being farther from the sun than Mercury, has more temp.
No new news, the dynamic is well known.
BTW, if you could "tailormake" Venuses atmosphere, it could be in the Earth's ballpark.
Second note, Mars would be colder if not for it's high condension of CO2.
However, the atmosphere is very thin, - Mars has very much less gravity than Venus (actually not much more than our moon), so holding an atmosphere means it would have to consist of "heavier" or more stable gases.
This whole lot is no unknown science, it's all about flexing the solar input in to our out of use. It's even used when making windows. And the effects in % are quite impressive!
-
BTW, what I mean with thermal energy in the sea is that the mass in just a few metres of sea is more than in the whole atmosphere. (760 mm hg has the mass of some 13.5 times the amount of water, - some 10 metres).
So a little warming in the sea is a lot of energy.
-
TCT throttles the mixture AFAIK.
I'll ask about, maybe I find some nice docs about it.
-
It just makes me laugh that "Global Warming is a sham", etc. It isn't, it will happen. In 4 billion years the Sun's corona will be past Mars, the Earth will look like the Moon afterwards.
But, efforts should be made to prevent what has happened on Venus, and that could happen within a few Generations.
-
Originally posted by RetroVirus
On various boards on which I post, I can't help noticing that those people who have been called "anti-environmentalists" - who claim that global warming is not man's fault/isn't a problem/is not happening at all - fall into two broad groups -
- those whose hobbies/jobs/livelihoods depend upon burning of large quantity of fossil fuel
- those who live in places like Texas, where their economy is dependent upon American "Big Oil".
Hmmm....
Well I'm not a Texan but I am a pilot so..................
However most of us burn quite a bit of fossil fuel, whether we like it or not. Do you drive a car? What do you heat your house with? Do you fly away on vacation? Do you use plastic goods?
We all burn fossil fuels and plenty of it.
I prefer to think that like Texans, those of us who are dubious about man made global warming are actually people who think for themselves and are not inclined to accept the 'inconvenient truth' no matter how hard it is rammed down our bloody throats. I frankly am sick to the back teeth of the relentless doom laden propaganda we are being fed lately.
I used to think I was the only one but of late a few others have come out of the woodwork and there is a definite rebellion against the new status quo. We may be wrong, maybe we humans are the entire cause of global warming. I don't believe it and an increasing number of us don't believe it either, even scientists. It tells you something when scientists who buck the trend are ridiculed by their peers. This is a very bad thing when it comes to proper science. I found it very disturbing lately when a so called scientist declared that the 'debate is over, man made global is a reality'. Very scientific!!
It rained all summer here this year. No longer do we see this as nature at it most erratic and capricious. No, we caused it to rain all summer! All on our very own. Human vanity and hubris.
You need people like us to kick the shin of the consensus. Even if we are wrong, which I doubt. You need people like us to doubt the 'inconvenient truth' because truth can be a very elastic phenomenon.
-
A point on "it rained here and was cold" etc.
The Oceans are roughly 2/3 of the globe. Their mass is an incredible many-time number of the atmosphere, - the first 30 feet of the surface or so will pawn that.
The Icecaps that are now turning into seawater are big indeed as well. Instead of working as a water storage (fresh) they are now mixing with the sea. The Icecaps also contain more mass than the atmosphere.
Sorry about it, but it just makes me giggle to read the arguments that "it's cold in my place" and comparing them to the sheer enormous mass of warming sea DESPITE melting ice.
-
WTF, how did a global warming hand grenade thrown into pond by Lazs turn into an interesting discussion on design of small engines.:eek:
As for the original article, this bit I liked:
The global warming hysteria will be remembered as one of those episodes of "the madness of crowds" which saw bands of flagellants wandering Europe urging folks to finish work on those cathedrals real soon because the world was going to come to an end at the millennium, in 1,000 A.D., and the minor panic of Oct. 30, 1938, when numerous radio listeners were taken in by the realistic Orson Welles broadcast of "The War of the Worlds."
Very true.
I don't agree that it is all the fault of the 'socialists'. Everyone has jumped on that particular bandwagon, right, left or sheeplike. I would love to jump forward into the future to read the history books on this period. Should be interesting.
-
Call it a hysteria, the visit the north pole, then Greenland, then the Ross shelv.
Do a little study....
-
It makes me 'giggle' to read that a few mild winters here means the global ice cap is melting forever and it was all caused by us.
The issue isn't whether we are going through a warm phase and I realise a warm phase may simply mean not as cold but still cold. We are going through a warm period.
The debate is whether or not we did it and is there anything we can do about it? My belief is no on both counts. Many others believe the same thing.
-
retrovirus... I don't think I use more energy than 75% of the people who are in the religious man made global warming zealot camp.
It is not so much my "hobbies" that I am defending as my freedom.
I have noticed that all the flagulants of "man made global warming" are lefties and want bigger government with more restrictions and more socialism to "solve the problem"
I also notice that their claims are wild and changing and scare tactics.
To me it sure seems more of a lefty socialist thing versus an individualist personal freedom thing.
I think that when all the hysteria is out of the thing... most people realize that we are polluting.. we will always pollute... even deer pollute but... most people realize that there is a lot of hype and outright lies because of the lefts agenda and that the pollution is not causing any significant change...
that nature is the real driving force of global climate and that if it decides to warm the globe of to cool it.. we are insignificant players and only along for the ride... we can't change the trends that mother nature has set since the beggining of time and..
Tho they pretend to understand all there is to know about it... they still don't know squat.. they are faking it and bs'ing. They don't know why it gets hotter or colder here any more than they know why the entire universe gets hotter or colder. but.. they can't tax the sun or regulate it so..
lazs
lazs
-
angus.. how is it then that in our time.... there were areas of the north pole that were bare of ice and now have ice on them? How could that be? How can satalite pictures of the north pole show huge areas of ice growing and shrinking at alarming rates (both ways) in just a ten year period.. it would almost seem natural.
How is it that the southern hemisphere is cooling... if you were to be an alarmist you would say that at the rate it is cooling the southern part will be in an ice age in the next 50 years.
If you look at any chart of global temp... we are heading down... at the rate it is moving we are going to be in another ice age in no time at all...
And of course.. it will be something man is doing that causes it.
lazs
-
here it is... look at the rate it is dropping!!!! we have to do something before it drops to freezing..
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm
sure...we are safe for now.. it looks like it has leveled off but... look at the way it has gone down in the last few years... at that rate it won't be long before the ice age is upon us..
famine... cold and hunger... millions starving to death.. the colder ocean sucking up our valuable co2 and depriving crops of yeild... plants dying and crops sparce.. people huddled together for warmth in almost prehistoric conditions... the polar caps growing and glaciers marching in on civilization.... much of the American continent under ice.
you heard it here first folks... don't forget who told you and be sure to send that check.
lazs
-
I just pointed out that the watermass contains enormously much more energy as well as mass than the atmosphere. A day in my place will easily have 20 degs C as a swing while the sea has practically none. Capiche?
As for the pole, I am fully aware that that area has been warmer. Areas in Greenland that now are exposing themselves (cough) are showing remains of a climate that once was similar to Scandinavia. Same show comes from fossils in the oldest parts of my country, and those are probably younger than the last heat disaster, that I have quoted before, - after all, the globe has flushed out most of it's life a few times before. Even with a global warming effect!
Here is one theory for you about the poles. After all, we have a polar roll, and we have polar shifts, and magnetic shifts which are another thing.
About non-Polish Poles:
Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_shift_theory
Here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Orbital_variations
Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
And....:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
And:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_region
Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_ice_cap
And...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_forcing
The Ice age:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
Our human times in climate occur here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene
And some extraction:
"The Earth is now in an interglacial period known as the Holocene. It was conventional wisdom that "the typical interglacial period lasts about 12,000 years" but now appears to be incorrect from the evidence of ice core records. Therefore, it has been widely contradicted recently; for example, an article in Nature[4] argues that the current interglacial might be most analogous to a previous interglacial that lasted 28,000 years.
Predicted changes in orbital forcing suggest that the next ice age will begin about 50,000 years from now, regardless of man-made global warming [5] (see Milankovitch cycles). However anthropogenic forcing from increased greenhouse gases should outweigh orbital forcing for as long as intensive use of fossil fuels continues (see global warming)."
Have a nice day ;)
-
The Icecaps have been retreating for some decades now. The North Pole already has been penetrated by an Icebreaker. And with all this ice melting, the total temperature of the oceans are warming.
Parallell of another thread now, here is a quote just posted there:
"The Earth is now in an interglacial period known as the Holocene. It was conventional wisdom that "the typical interglacial period lasts about 12,000 years" but now appears to be incorrect from the evidence of ice core records. Therefore, it has been widely contradicted recently; for example, an article in Nature[4] argues that the current interglacial might be most analogous to a previous interglacial that lasted 28,000 years.
Predicted changes in orbital forcing suggest that the next ice age will begin about 50,000 years from now, regardless of man-made global warming [5] (see Milankovitch cycles). However anthropogenic forcing from increased greenhouse gases should outweigh orbital forcing for as long as intensive use of fossil fuels continues (see global warming)."
You'll find the links if you look.
-
Angus, wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything. It's a crock.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
It makes me 'giggle' to read that a few mild winters here means the global ice cap is melting forever and it was all caused by us.
The issue isn't whether we are going through a warm phase and I realise a warm phase may simply mean not as cold but still cold. We are going through a warm period.
The debate is whether or not we did it and is there anything we can do about it? My belief is no on both counts. Many others believe the same thing.
When did I state that? BUT, we are "contributing towards it", to think otherwise is ludicrous.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I very much believe we can have an effect on air quality.. they less inversion in an area the worse it is too... if we insist on living in areas that don't self clean we will have some pretty bad air there.. the indians reported smog in los angles valley from simple bonfires. lazs
Good idea, spread the smog around.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Angus, wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything. It's a crock.
It is closely following Britannica FYI, and that one came as a shock to many.
Addition, the periodic table of elements in there seems to be correct. So Water vs Mercury seems to be...correct.
Sources are all useless if your mind cannot handle working with them anyway...
-
Of course we are "contributing toward it"... we are contributing toward every single thing that happens just by being here.
The point is tho.. how much and what can we do about it... I say very little in both cases. I say that nature is such an overwhelming cause that anything we do about global climate won't change the way nature wants to go in any real measurable way.
angus's quote simply says that the scientists are caught off guard by nature once again... big surprise... they simply can't predict squat when it comes to any natural global climate. They don't understand fully how nature works much less how we affect it.. their models are pitiful childrens toys missing any signifcance in the real world.
lazs
-
So, that's that far. You say we are contributing to something that we couldn't, and the "something" is something that was not happening.
(when compared to the debates some months ago)
-
retro.. what? a 2006 study? you realize that the man made global warming alarmists have changed their minds ten times on about everything since 2006 right? no more 30' rise in the oceans in 3 decades... no more 5 degrees warmer... etc etc etc.
You say that it won't hurt us to appease the accolytes of the man made global religion... but... you don't say what we have to do... you don't say what laws you want to see passed what restrictions... how much it will cost us...
That stuff is not being discussed because if it was... then you and your ilk would have to do some real explaining. People would want more that "significant" and "we believe" and some real numbers starting with what is happening right now and what the temp will be next year and the year after...
sure.. I will screw in the mercury filled bulbs. Why not? I don't worry about mercury poison.
What else you want me to do?
lazs
-
Angus... of course we create pollution.. of course lighting a match affects the temp of the glob... for an instant and in an infintesimal way...
I believe that the effect we are having on world global climate is minute... not worth getting worked up about and that natural forces are such that normal swings in global climate sweep anything we do off the table like a single ant at a picnic... I won't shut down a picnic or spray pesticides all over the place over one ant.
I feel, as do most of the less hysterical scientists.. that we affect the rate of increase... maybe one to three percent... In other words... if the temp were to rise 1 degree on it's own in 100 years... we would be adding about 1-3% % to that one degree. nothing to get excited about and...
If we go into a normal cooling cycle (and we are and we will)... our little contribution will not even be measurable anymore... if we go into a dangerous cooling cycle.. say an ice age... we won't be able to stop it... we can't heat the planet..
Admit it.. we can't stop it from getting colder... so how dangerous is our "man made global warming" if we can't even prevent global cooling?
As I said.. I don't believe we are contributing enough to matter one way or the other but... we will get more energy efficient... it is inevitable and a good thing... not because we are paniced and conned into it but because...
energy need to get cheaper and cleaner... it will happen on it's own as the tech gets better.
That is the way I want it to happen... at it's own speed and with time to think it through...
Not is a panic that breeds things like a DDT ban or a MTBE in the gasoline not a panic that kills millions and poisons our water.
lazs
-
"Ifs"..."When and ...if"............ "Maybe".............."Maybe not"............"Could be"......."Possibly".........and as has been said "Significant".
I R A scientist. Give me my grant money.
"If" a rabbit had wings his butt wouldn`t hit the ground so much. That would be a "significant" difference.
Pay me.
-
milo.. I am in the pollution business... the saying is "the solution to pollution is dillution"
this is a true statement.. every thing on the planet including us and the earth itself... causes pollution to some other part of the planet.
If you define pollution as any change in the background then everything pollutes.
If you define pollution as any measurable addition to the background that can be proven to be harmful then that is something else.
people add nitrates and co2 to crops all the time to increase yield.. without it..millions would starve. and.. in the grand scheme of things.. it is nothing.
If the only cars were those in LA basin... the pollution would still be terrible there.. if it was on the plains.. it would not even be measurable on a global scale.
Co2 trails global temp rise... the sun is heating the planet... it will start cooling shortly. As it cools.. the oceans will absorb the co2 and we will have slightly less crop yeild...
We need to worry more about global cooling than warming by a far cry.
lazs
-
woohoo no more recycling!
-
Originally posted by lazs2
What else you want me to do?
lazs
I'm sure many would be satisfied if we just gave control over everything to the UN.
No surer way to start a world war imo though.
-
You cant reduce carbon emissions unless you stop using technology altogether. Ever since man made the first fire (and there was certainly fire before man) we have emitted carbon. But if you added up all the carbon emissions man has caused in all of his history it all doesnt reach the level of even a single volcanic eruption.
This is nonsense to argue about and the politicians love it because it distracts from real issues people need to be concerned about like the people losing even more power to congress.
-
I think that pollution is a term clear enough. No need to debate that there is no pollution because of the term, any more than debating that the Arctic areas cannot be melting because Wikipedia isn't reliable enough.
One can of course go and see things with the naked eye.....comes as a shock to many that got thrown off by maneuvers like that one.
BTW, since you mentioned what is added to crops, you just entered my field.
Nitrate, yes, but you need to balance it with phosphate and Kalium (Potassium). N-P-K.
Nitrate will enhance growth, which will, by the way, tie up charbon. After all, the valuable part in plant tissue is C.
You will need more N if there is much C in the ground, since they hook up.
With organic growing however, that is not so marked. But since you still need N, you need to grow N-binding plants to make the N or you. (Alfa-Alfa, Clover, Peas, etc). Brilliant. You use the sun's energy to harness both N and C out of the atmosphere through plants.
And then on to pollution...
If you grow up with it and know little else...then what? It's normal.
If you don't, and later go and see it every now and then, it's a shock!
Drive to a city of millions, and you will see the sphere of polluted air way before you spot the buildings. Depending of landscape of course.
You will have no visibility compared to relatively clean air.
I have seen a coastline from some 200 miles. Try that in LA.
And other pollution? Try drinkable water to undrinkable for instance. very many man-made examples I''m afraid...
-
LOL, yeah. Even a horse-pulled plow IS technology. Would be good to have a definition here, for a lot of technology is actually both pollution reducing AND energy saving.
Did you get the word mixed up with the term "cheap consumption" perhaps?
-
Even the ocean emits more carbon-dioxide than man. No I think even cave men would understand what I meant by technology. Thanks for making it clear where you stand.
-
Originally posted by Angus
It is closely following Britannica FYI, and that one came as a shock to many.
Not really. There is A LOT out there about the whole Wiki vs Brit debate. I am far too lazy to drag them all out -- do a search. Bottom line, the so-called "study" that found comparable accuracy was flawed to say the least.
Here is one article that gives a bit of an overview not only of Britannica's response, but Nature's response to the response (which is almost as flawed as their original study).
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-03-30-nature-britannica_x.htm
Britannica claimed that Nature had sent reviewers an excerpt instead of a full article — and then published the reviewer's comment that the "article" was incomplete.
Nature's response: "In a small number of cases, to ensure comparable lengths, we provided reviewers with chosen excerpts, not full articles; this was done with entries from both Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia."
Wait wait wait. The article was supposed to compare the quality and accuracy of the two encyclopedias, but they cut some articles "to ensure comparable lengths"? That's like comparing a Ford Escort to a Corvette but first pulling out half the 'Vette's spark plugs "to ensure comparable cylinders." You can't cripple a competitor and then fault it for being crippled!
Onward. Britannica claimed that some of Nature's reviewers counted as errors things that were not, in fact, incorrect. This added to Britannica's error count, and the encyclopedia folks said Nature should have checked. Makes sense to me.
Nature's response: "Britannica objects that Nature did not check the assertions of its reviewers. This is true; nor did we claim to. We realized that in some cases our reviewers' criticisms would be open to debate, and in some cases might be wrong."
Yikes! So Nature published an article based on information that it knew "in some cases might be wrong"? Because the editors didn't want to check?
Look, if you're going to publish an article saying there are errors of fact in an encyclopedia, you'd darn well better check your facts. Saying "we knew the author might be wrong" doesn't cut it.
-
It is clear that global warming is occuring. It is clear that man affects the planet, even on the large scale. The ice caps are beginning to melt, it is true. Glaciers are retreating. The Earth's overall temperature has begun to rise. Ocean temperatures have risen. The occurance of large storms has risen. Lazs, you can't deny all these things that are staring you dead in the face. But, then you don't try to deny it, you try to pin the blame on Nature. Well, sure, Nature does have cycles of warming and cooling, but this time is different. It's warming faster than before. In the last 74 years, it has become much warmer. My papaws talk of snows when they were kids, and in their teens. Not anymore. We're lucky to have freezing weather in the winters nowadays. Sure, we had a good winter this year, but that's out of 15 years without hardly one. And when someone says,
Not is a panic that breeds things like a DDT ban or a MTBE in the gasoline not a panic that kills millions and poisons our water.
It sounds like you're saying it was wrong to ban DDT. Have you researched what it caused? It affected many species, and not just pests. The birds of prey accumulated it in their systems from eating things that had eaten it or insects containing it, and it caused their eggshells to be so thin that they couldn't rear young. It caused many species to become endangered, including the national symbol, the bald eagle. Something with effects like that should be banned. A person who says it shouldn't have been banned, whether they beleive the evidence or not, just has no accountability in my book. As for the global warming, at this point, I don't think there's much we can do. It is predicted in the Bible that it will occur, as well as many other things that are happening.
-
Dunno about other truths but what’s commonly accepted as truth is that there have been global temperature fluctuations exceeding what is predicted in the foreseeable future by the global warming alarmists. Weather (very poor pun) or not this was due to some sentient beings influence millennia ago is beyond the scope of this post.
-
I recall a comparison between Wiki and Britannica. Britannica was in the lead, just not by much.
Anyway, when it boils down to this:
"All this brought up the big question: Can you trust an encyclopedia anyone can edit?"
That applies to both camps in the warming debate. Not just one.
Anyway, the links I brought were more of general referrence, like Ice age etc. Many if not most items included are not being debated at all. And then of course, you have the links to the sources.
As for the polar caps melting, that is now pretty well established. Both north and south, as well as MOST glaciers in the world. Tibet, Iceland, Switzerland, just name it.
In our Icelandic case 10 out of the 12 biggest ones are retreating. All of the very biggest ones I belive.
And then to the ocean temps...it's a measured issue. Since the annual swings are much less than in the atmosphere (that is naturally a physics issue) some thing like only one degree weights a lot more.
Water mass: You learned that is school yes?
Atmospheric pressure: That one as well?
Ice mass as a total: calculated but with quite some accuracy due to sonar technology and "silly things" as drilling and mapping things.
And if that's not enough, go and see for yourself...
-
Originally posted by Chalenge
Even the ocean emits more carbon-dioxide than man. No I think even cave men would understand what I meant by technology. Thanks for making it clear where you stand.
Thanks for explaining :D
And McFarland: This time I agree with you.
On this as well:
"It sounds like you're saying it was wrong to ban DDT. Have you researched what it caused?"
This was an issue in my agricultural college at the time.
DDT didn't really cause havoc amongst us people, but it did lots of things in the nature. The cause for WHY it didn't wreak havoc amongst humans, is because it was banned early enough. None the less, every human being is born with some DDT in the body.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Call it a hysteria, the visit the north pole, then Greenland, then the Ross shelv.
Do a little study....
the ross ice shelf belongs to nz and the sooner all the ice there melts the better... it'll be easier to drill for the oil without it
btw, it's the political con of the century so far but are you buying into that " a country can become carbon neutral" crap?
-
Haven't really looked into it, but I remain a sceptic about it, yes.
-
Oh, in the Northern hemisphere, some possible oil fields are getting accessible because of the retreat of ice.
But talking of "better", all that melting will raise SL. Not the N-Pole of course, just the landbound ice, Greenland and Antarctica.
Anyway, I mentioned those areas, because the melting is very visible.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
As for the global warming, at this point, I don't think there's much we can do. It is predicted in the Bible that it will occur, as well as many other things that are happening.
Yes we can. We can ban the bible and replace it with a book with more positive content. Perhaps a buddhist bible would do more right than wrong. If not, we can write a new book.
-
i know your sensible, but i just had to ask. i don't know how the politicians can advocate something as ludicrous and as airy-fairy and non specific like carbon neutrality, and at the same time lie straight in their beds at night. i guess if there's political mileage in it for them they will gamble on the old adage that if the lie is big enough people will believe it. it sucks to be a sucker but there's plenty of them it seems
and actually i don’t think antartica is on our short list for exploration just yet,
although with exonmobil about to move in to the great south basin to do exploratory work the rigs will probably be moving in that direction some day
-
Yeah, I think the next in the spotlight is somewhere outside Canada.
As for the carbon neutrality, my first thought on it was that it's buyng peace. Not every nation is in on it, and those who are going to be listed as the "environmental pigs" are countries producing cheap goods for those that go "neutral". Your thought on that?
-
retro... How do I... me... "switch to a renewable source of fuel"??? You realize that oil is a renewable resource right? that it isn't dead dino's like your scientists told us in the not to distant past? What renewable source of fuel do you want me to tank up with? alcohol.. methanol... takes more oil to make a gallon of that stuff than it saves...
maybe you want me to use nuke power? I don't make those calls. The left here has pretty much banned nuke plants and exploration for oil... they won't be happy till we are back in the dark ages... like a big rennisaince fair but with more dirt and disease and death and starvation.
You have no solution do you?
You have suggested nothing that I can recall. You are the one who should stop being "silly" and start giving some hard numbers and some real solutions if you believe we can do something about how the sun warms the planet.
And yes... the man made global warming scare is a lefty socialist scare...here and in the rest of the world. The biggest liar and promoter of "do something now before we all fry" is the UN...
You aren't going to tell me that the UN is not a power grabbing socialist organization are you?
lazs
-
angus... please.. use whatever search and source you like.. the LA basin would have poor visibility and "smog" if only indians and their bonfires were there.. it is not a good place for clean air.
lazs
-
Well, you could begin with Dirty, then Dirtier, and then Dirtiest :D
And how about Frankfurt then ? The place has a sphere of smog. Like many others, may I add...it's by no means being close to the worst...
-
The earth has been constantly............constan tly changing from day one of recorded history.
THIS JUST IN: It is expected to do so in the future.
That is all. :)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
And yes... the man made global warming scare is a lefty socialist scare...here and in the rest of the world. The biggest liar and promoter of "do something now before we all fry" is the UN...
You aren't going to tell me that the UN is not a power grabbing socialist organization are you?
Now there is something that is scary if you live in the U.S...............well anywhere actualy.
You won`t something to sink your teeth into, then try this-->Get the UN to hell out of the U.S.
-
Lazs, what have you been smoking:
"retro... How do I... me... "switch to a renewable source of fuel"??? You realize that oil is a renewable resource right? that it isn't dead dino's like your scientists told us in the not to distant past? What renewable source of fuel do you want me to tank up with? alcohol.. methanol... takes more oil to make a gallon of that stuff than it saves... "
It is only renewable if there is the equal (calibrated) amount of biomass of the right sort disappearing into the ground.
For that, you need a lot of wildland. Much more than we have today.
As for alcohol or methanol I can dig up the figures, but you're dead wrong.
I'll bring you some ineffective numbers from my rogue days as a brewer.
From 5 kg's of sugar you would get 20 ltrs of ca 12% brew. That's about 20.000 kcal turning into 2.5 ltr's clear alcohol, - ethanol calibrated as 90%+
20.000 kcal are some 12 kg's of Barley. A good field up here, in ICELAND, will give some 5 tonnes, - that is the energy of 412 times what you had in the bucket, or roughly 1.000 litres of clear ethanol.
That also leaves the straw, on a good field that would be 3-4 tonnes of burnable material, but you have to be insane to think that the combined energy to grow and harvest one ha of Barley tops 1,000 litres energy worth of 90% moon....
As for what counts into as minus, is the fertilizer, the seed, and the work.
The diesel you'd burn would perhaps be 50 litres. The fertilizer is 600 kg's, worth of an unknown part, but it can be found out, and then there is some energy cost for the machinery, but I doubt that one will pitch up against just the straw.
1000 vs 50 is what we have. And there comes the bone, barley is nothing good for maximum efficiency, Methanol gives a lot more than ethanol, and Iceland is NOT the place for macimum efficiency. In short, my numbers are but a friction of what can be done in other places.
What's in your head? What's wrong with an organic way of growing fuel for combustion engines? Because THAT is a renewable source, and NOT pumping out the fossile fuels of old.
-
Oh, and as a sidenote, about the lefties, - It also pisses me off when they are against everything. Against fossil fuel, against Hydro plants, and against nuke plants. Kind of like yourself with one excption. Against any other outcome than pumbing out all the fossil fuel there is, polluting the planet for counterbalance and then as the final straw to lock yourself in with your handgun. Bahhh!:furious
-
(http://www.wearewatchingyou.us/wp-content/uploads/Image/exxon.jpg)
Old pic, huh?
Still funny, sad, and maddening.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
The earth has been constantly............constan tly changing from day one of recorded history.
THIS JUST IN: It is expected to do so in the future.
That is all. :)
And it will. But because of that, it's not necessary to screw it up now is it?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Yeah, I think the next in the spotlight is somewhere outside Canada.
As for the carbon neutrality, my first thought on it was that it's buyng peace. Not every nation is in on it, and those who are going to be listed as the "environmental pigs" are countries producing cheap goods for those that go "neutral". Your thought on that?
It's not only the consumption of imports that makes a nonsense of it, but the exports do as well. how a country like nz can claim it can become carbon neutral for example, when it exports craploads of coal to china is mind boggling stupid.
even if it was possible for a country to achieve carbon neutrality it's going to have to do it from out side of the global economy. i.e. no imports - no exports.. hello stone age.
carbon neutrality is nothing more than out right lies and feel good rhetoric. it's nothing but a hijacking of the natural and increasing environmental awareness shown by people these days, by the power hungry, dishonest and greedy.. aka as politicians
-
True as it is, - you export loads of C to china, and then you import steel. China gets the yellow card.
One positive side though is that there is at least an attempt to reduce emissions, - or is it?
The solution is not there at least.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
angus... please.. use whatever search and source you like.. the LA basin would have poor visibility and "smog" if only indians and their bonfires were there.. it is not a good place for clean air.
lazs
Ok, according to your reasoning on this, a place has clean air as long as the smog is blown somewhere else? Did it occur to you that the smog has to go somewhere? Where it does go, it is worse for them. And if it blows out of the place, it can blow right back in from somewhere else. Good air flow doesn't neccessarily mean good air.
-
the biggest problem with it apart from the political manipulation is that there is no real logic to it. It's more about appearances than anything else. using the example of nz coal - we sell it to the chinese knowing that it will be burnt and produce co2. what's the difference if we keep the coal and burn it ourselves.. absolutely none. It's all the same atmosphere, the co2 is just emitted from different parts of the globe. if there was any real substance to the carbon neutral claims we would walk the talk and not sell the coal to china. of course we probably wont do that , we are a trading nation and need the export $$. It's a good example of why the cabon neutral concept is so fundamentally flawed that it's bogus.
-
Originally posted by Angus
And it will. But because of that, it's not necessary to screw it up now is it?
Exactly my point. It is also not necessary to rob ourselves. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by RetroVirus
The earth has been heating up at an unprecedented rate in the last 100 years. THIS JUST IN: This just happens to coincide with an unprecedented level of fossil fuel combustion in the industrialized world during the same period.
Time wise, when discussing the earth, 100 years is like a chigger on an elephants back.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Time wise, when discussing the earth, 100 years is like a chigger on an elephants back.
You hit the nail on the head there, but unfortunately your own head.
What has happened in 100 years, and is presumed to accelerate in the next 100 or less, has never happened that fast as far as known by natural causes. The only exception meant the intervention of huge volcanic actvity and/or Meteor, - meteors also triggered volcanic activity if the were big enough.
The results were always the same, - destroyng from 50% or much more of species of the planet.
So, that spike in 100 years means that the elephant has to start sweating.
-
"Now read it again and assimilate."
LOL:
Resistance is futile.
-
assimilater what?
"cut waste"
Oh... thats a good one.. I don't waste.. not in my mind. I may like to drive hot rods but I sure as hell use a lot less energy in a year than your hero algore or.... probly you yourself. What exactly does "cut waste" mean? Does it mean no one can have a house over 4000 square feet for a family of 3 and the servants or... does in mean everyone should live in a 700' apartment? does it mean we should all try to cut waste or should laws be passed? If all you want to do is suggest then... fine.
"use alternative fuels and renewable resources"
That is also meaningless too unless they exist... I will use any fuel that works as well as what I am using and costs the same or less.. I don't care if my power comes from coal or wind or solar or nuke.. so long as the price is right and it works.. solar will soon get to the point where it makes sense for a homeowner on his roof. I will do so at that time... if it saves me money... In any case... let the free market take care of it.. supply and demand.
"use them more efficiently. if you are a pilot... etc etc etc"
Well no crap.... Of course they are more efficient.. the free market is making them so. everything you and I buy is more efficient... not because of the alarmists but because the free market demands it. Tech is catching up...
stop the alarmist crap and let the free market handle our energy problems. solar, nuke wind... something else.. it is all getting better and as oil gets more expensive... it all becomes viable to develop... I am all for that... I love progress..
I just don't want you and your lefty ilk to get involved in it.
lazs
-
angus... I am not sure what numbers you are using but here it takes more energy and costs us more in the long run to use corn for ethanol.. course we use tractors and trucks and such and not plows pulled by mules here.
lazs
-
retro... this just in... For the last 100 years the earth has been heating up in a manner that is unprecedented since the last time it did it.
This just happens to coincide with the suns activity first going to an unprecedented high for 100 years...
This just in... co2 is trailing said activity just like it always has since the beggining.
This just in... solar activity dropped for the last few years and temp is now starting to drop... at which point.. the trailing indicatror.. the unimportant one... co2 will then drop at a slow rate as the oceans cool and absorb more of it.
"carbon neutral" LOL.. what a scam... algore in a craphole of a leaky mansion using more energy than 10 normal families offsetting his "carbon" by having some peasants somewhere planting a few trees... so that they have to slash and burn that many more down the road to make room for FOOD and goods to sell.
"carbon neutral" is just lefty nutjob meddling with things that they don't understand or have even given much thought to... just to make em feel better and will most likely cause disease and death and poverty on some grand scale.
lazs
-
retro.. I have even started a thread asking what you lefties would have us do to "stop man made global warming" er... I guess now they call it "climate change" to cover the bases but... you get the idea.
I asked and got nothing but suggestions and generalities and evassive answers like yours... not specific like
"we should burn algore in his own wasteful furnace"
nope.. the only answer with any meaning was someone said we should mandate the mercury polluting flourecent bulbs for homes..
Ok... I did that... I am clean.
You say we should waste less. I don't waste... I need to use a lot of fuel to make the hp I like but I don't waste it.. I don't run over rich or spill it or pour it out. I run an electric mower and don't spend a lot heating and cooling... not healthy to change the temp too much from inside to outside... probly use less than you do. My BMW bike gets over 50 mpg and my el camino gets 6-14 mpg. I use both along with a lincoln that gets 23 mpg. none of your business... I still use less than most and I can afford it.
Ok.. I am clean.
No... I want specifics... what laws would you pass? How much more a year are you willing to charge every single one of us to avert this disaster? this disaster that seems to be on the verge of averting itself if the latest temps (which they don't like to publish much) are any indication... How much?
10%? 20%? of what we earn? maybe more? maybe a flat fee per person per year? $100 a year? $10,000 a year? how much is enough and why?
I say.. STFU and just let the free market do its thing and let people make their own choices on how to live... if they want to live like a slob king like algore... so be it.. if they can afford it... let em. if they want to live like a bee person in a hive.. let em live in a hive city and ride bikes.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
What has happened in 100 years, and is presumed to accelerate in the next 100 or less, has never happened that fast as far as known by natural causes.
LOL Presumed??? Presumed by who.........whom....whodat? The ones getting paid to say they "presume"? Pretty big assumption.
The only exception meant the intervention of huge volcanic actvity and/or Meteor, - meteors also triggered volcanic activity if the were big enough.
So............we can forget all about naturaly occuring changes in atmosphere and climate? Another rather large assumption.
That`s just it. Nobody knows or even has any idea what mother nature will do on her on. Never has, never will.
In the meantime we can figure out more ridiculous ways to rob ourselves due to unfounded speculation. I`ll opt out.
-
Retro: you were basically right. As well though, the increase in ice melting, or rather shrinking into an all time low is unique for a period longer than mankind. (definitions as you choose).
And Jackal:
"LOL Presumed??? Presumed by who.........whom....whodat? The ones getting paid to say they "presume"? Pretty big assumption."
Compare a crowd that is being paid to presume what they find out, to a crowd that is being paid (more) to say what they are asked to. Then try to figure out what I just said. Camp-to-camp.
As for this Jacka1:
"So............we can forget all about naturaly occuring changes in atmosphere and climate? Another rather large assumption.
That`s just it. Nobody knows or even has any idea what mother nature will do on her on. Never has, never will.
In the meantime we can figure out more ridiculous ways to rob ourselves due to unfounded speculation. I`ll opt out."
Firstly, the whole discussion is about the things mother nature is NOT doing.
As for robbing ourselves, - well, I think actually that it is us that are robbing...mother Nature.
Final poke/trivia: How much estimated ratio do you think there is between the oil we are burning and oil created by natural causes.
Have a nice day.
-
retro...you do realize that "suns brightness" is not all there is to solar activity right? Just more dishonesty by the left... maybe you should read the report again... while you are at it... note that not only is solar activity going down but... oddly... temp seems to be leveling off and going lower.
Solar activity leads temp change and Co2 lags it. To study co2 is to study what the sun has already done. It is a study of what has happened not what will happen.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm
you will see that not only is the "suns brightness" (LOL) going down but so is solar activity and so is global temp.... You are the one who ought to get his...
"The end is near!!!" signboard painted up and get to wearing it cause... the you don't have a lot of time... the earth will start to cool..
you clowns will have to switch to "global climate change" and "prove" that the temp going down if the end and that it is caused by man sucking up the co2 or polluting the oceans or whatever...
The entire solar system heats and cools and man has nothing to do with it... the big yellow ball in the sky does it. maybe a little solar wind and some core shifts on the planet... not too many cars on mars or jupiter... not too many people eating cows...
lazs
-
I am as "clean" as I want to be. which is probly more so than you or the guys you admire.
So you favor laws that will increase the price of fuel for people. How much are you willing to gouge?
Is a 5% cut in everyones standard of living enough to avert the crisis? How bout 10%? would you be happy if everyone had 10% less money to spend on themselves and their families? is that enough to make the suns activity go down or do we have to make even greater offerings to your gods?
Do you think people will be happy to have their income slashed?
lazs
-
your "ilk" would be the leftie socialists who are all so "worried" about man made global warming and want to pass laws.
Oh... what is the (counter=3) thing?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
angus... I am not sure what numbers you are using but here it takes more energy and costs us more in the long run to use corn for ethanol.. course we use tractors and trucks and such and not plows pulled by mules here.
lazs
I claim you are wong and challenge you to show numbers.
I showed you ones I have without having to use anything close to Wikipedia even. And they were indeed low.
BTW, the Brazilians do this.. And even the swedes are doing this with a simple process, - squeesing the oil out of food rape seed for direct fuel for themselves, - it's all for food and seed, - they still have plenty for both seed, biomass and rest as cattlefeed.
Anyway, what to expect from a crowd that has not yet understood something as simple as photosyntesis.
-
my computer model can beat your computer model.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
retro.. I have even started a thread asking what you lefties would have us do to "stop man made global warming" er... I guess now they call it "climate change" to cover the bases but... you get the idea.
You've been saying this for some time now. Every time you repeat this fallacy, I chuckle, since like most of your 'facts,' it has little in common with the truth of the matter.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988. So, they have always called it climate change. However, this has nothing to do with your definition of climate change: "ITS THE SUN STUPID."
Note that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines “climate change” as: “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between“climate change” attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition,and “climate variability” attributable to natural causes.
Moving on twelve years...
Perhaps you are wondering whether this analysis of Unspeak sounds a little like a conspiracy theory. Are there really little grey men sitting in secret offices, deciding on the precise language they will use to bamboozle the public? As it happens, there are. Take the case of the US pollster Frank Luntz, who has produced a series of memos advising the Republican Party on the correct language to use for various issues. One such document treats environmental matters: "the terminology in the upcoming environmental debate needs refinement . . . It's time for us to start talking about 'climate change' instead of global warming . . . 'Climate change' is less frightening than 'global warming'. As one focus-group participant noted, climate change 'sounds like you're going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale'. While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge." Quite so. Moreover, "climate change" remains usefully vague on both the causes and direction of any possible change. For these reasons, a coalition of oil-producing companies, led by the US and Saudi Arabia, lobbied successfully in the early 1990s to change the official language at the United Nations from "global warming" to "climate change". This battle of Unspeak seemed to have been won, though the softening effect of "climate change", intended to head off alarm at government inaction against impending catastrophe, may not be working in the face of increasing public anxiety.
link (http://www.newstatesman.com/200602200020)
So, you are either being economical with the truth, or you are arguing vehemently on a topic that you have little understanding of.
In a true 'straight talking' fashion, which description do you prefer: liar or fool?
-
A climate change that leads to massive amounts of ice that has remained where it is and even more to MELT at record speed and head to none existence is what then? Just a climate change so that you can have Exxon happier and the ignorant crowd with them?
-
So you were a moonshiner too, Angus? Not enough of em left anymore. But moonshining uses only renewable fuels- grass to feed the horse that pulls the plow. Wood from trees that grow back quickly to distill the shine. Corn that grows back quickly every year to make the shine. I don't see any oil being used here. Unless you use a tractor, which you can run on the shine. And you can run your car straight on shine. I did for years, and the engine had less problems than when I ran it on gas. Still no oil used. It burns cleaner than gas even. Corn takes up very little land for the amount of shine you get. It takes even less land than the oil wells and refineries do. And where corn don't grow, (if you could possibly find a place like that), other plants can be grown and fermented to produce alcohol. Such as barley, rye, grapes, cane. It is actually better than oil in almost all respects. The only reason it costs more is because it is so hard to get. Once it is more common, it would be cheaper than oil.
-
Hehe, I just used sugar, yeast, the summer temp, and an electrical boiler.
Just calibrated the calory numbers, - barley 1.650 vs sugar 4.100.
Just used numbers I know like the back of my hand, - after all they are my field of work, - growing things, and the numbers from brewing which my father taught me a long time ago.
Potatoes in the land here would increase the output a lot. You have like 2 or three times the amounts of kcal pr ha, but the work is heavier. However, with advanced distilling (methanol yealds more) yoou also increase the output.
It was just a demo. Always pisses me off to see how much ignorance of those common things is bobbing about.
-
LOL... so the republicans gave it the "global climate change" moniker and NPR and the liberal media just went with it... The UN just went with it.
I don't know if I am a fool but I try not to lie. I believe that you are both tho akh. I believe that you are religious in your fervor and you will say anything. I believe you are a fool because I think you believe the global warming alarmists and I think you are a liar because you intentionally skirt the real meat of any subject.
If you really believe that we should not use the term "man made global warming" then I agree since I believe we are doing little or nothing to make the globe warm.
retro... It is difficult to know what you have said since I don't know who I am talking to. You say that you have always been "retro" something or other but... let's take what you claim to have said.
You say that we should make it free for anyone who uses e85 to use the roads... no road taxes. On the face of it that is fine except... how do you pay for roads? It is hardly fair since the roads have nothing to do with what kind of fuel you use and... a road tax should be spent only to make and repair roads. Those who don't use e85 end up paying more taxes than those who do for the same service and the same amount of wear and tear.
Now... say that you got your way and everyone got a tax break... no taxes...Have you ever seen our (US) get rid of a tax? they will simply spread the tax or deficit spend to pay for the roads.
If you want to mandate that more cars be made to use the fuel.. that is not really letting the free market work. That is indeed liberal socialist.
I am glad that you have at last answered (counter or no) my question about what we should do tho....
We should force people to use e85 you say.. no matter what it does to the price or to the car companies.
I don't know where I have ever not answered on of your questions but if you have any then just put em out there.
I don't believe I ever said that wanting to force e85 on people was part of your religion tho... your religion is that you believe we are the driving factor in the climate. I guess that making everyone switch without a lot more study might fit into the religious end of it tho.
you can't grow all those crops to burn in your car without affecting food production.
lazs
-
mcfarland... you can't simply fill your tank with "shine" and call it good. It won't run for crap.
You need almost twice as much of the low energy booze than you do gasoline. you would need to rejet...no... throw away the jets in your carb. you would have to pour the stuff in to the engine to get any power out of it...
I think all you "man made global warming" acolytes should listen to angus and mcfarland and go buy a bunch of alcohol and pour it into your tank right now... go ahead... mcfarland says it will run "just fine".
To be accused of being a fool and a liar in this company is an honor.
lazs
-
but wait.... the graph shows up and down temp changes... during the time that it is staying even (that would be now) or going down... the co2 has trippled.. according to the alamists.
Why do you suppose the big push to panic is on? They have to get the stuff they want before the big yellow globe makes liars out of em and takes away the glory and the grants.
What have we done to make the temp stop rising? oh wait... there was some article as I recall that "proved" it couldn't be the sun because the "brightness" had gone down recently... the suns real activity will go down.. the temp will go down...Co2, as always will just tag along for the ride.
So what do we do when the suns activity slows and we go into a cold period? If we are still alive... I bet the farm there will be some alarmists that will be trying to tell us it is our fault. That if we don't give them the money and stop whatever we are doing at the time... we will freeze to death.
lazs
-
For the benefit of people actually prepared to read this para (which may not include lazs2) here is one of my suggestions. Most countries have an annual tax on cars. In America, there are sometimes two levels of tax – a “city sticker”, and the license plate tags. Other countries have different types of stickers eg. “vignette” in Switzerland and France. What I would do if I was in control of government finance would be to zero rate this tax for all vehicles running on alternative fuel eg. E85 and bio diesel, for the next two years and then review the situation and consider an extension. Most people have never heard of E85 because it’s not being pushed and is subject to the same taxes as other fuels. The zero rate would not cost governments much because only a handful of vehicles run on E85. The zero rate would put alternative fuels into the spotlight and (I believe) would encourage take up. I’m not saying that this single step is going to “solve global warming”, before some smart alec (lazs2?) suggests that’s what I meant. It’s one of a large package of measures that govts could take. Remember, vehicle emissions account for only about 25% of man made greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, my suggestion may not interest drivers of “hot rods”, but the vast majority of drivers just want a car that gets from A to B and don’t give a damn what fuel it runs on as long as costs are within reason.
About the most we can expect biofuels to deliver relative to projected liquid fuel demand by 2025-37 or so is 3 percent. A significant breakthrough in cellulosic ethanol or algae as a biodiesel feedstock "might" impact his somewhat depending upon the yields and how the infrastructure is developed. The reality is biofuels will not solve our problems today in the the near (decades) future.
Currently there is a $.52 cent per gallon tax subsidy on ethanol and about $1 on biodiesel to make them cost competitive with petroleum. Improved technology (feedstock) can help and improved demand and volume can help. BTW, while ethanol is 30 percent less efficient than gasoline (leading to poorer mileage) it is an octane enhancer and can produce improved HP which of course is of interest to hot rodders.
E-85 suffers from this lower energy content, meaning that consumers should see a street price $.20 lower than conventional gasoline to get the same value in the product -- which makes it a tough proposition even with the subsidy (see, it is not taxed the same, you GET tax dollars for blending it in gasoline). Even the ethanol industry is pushing more for e-10 (10 percent blend) which is already in 50 percent of our gas compared to E-85 which barely registers. The energy shortcomings are diluted at this level, it's octane enhancements are a positive, and most critically it represents a volume that corn based ethanol can meet comfortably which goes back to the core economic roots of biofuel legislation.
Then there is "fuel to food," concerns and commodities speculation (like you have with crude and refined products on the other side) creating price volatility comparable to petroleum.
Ethanol is also difficult to transport in pipelines (virtually impossible) leading to high transportation costs (rail, barge, truck) and the need for localized production which in turn really needs to come from cellulosic sources.
Similarly, while biodiesel is cleaner burning than diesel (even ULSD) by a long shot it also has negatives like cold flow issues which rule out blends in the B-20 (20% biodiesel) range or higher in colder climates leaving B-5 about the most viable universal formulation.
These are not my opinions per se, but those of The American Coalition for Ethanol, The National Biodiesel Board, Dr. Lee Lynd at Mascoma who just won a MIT sustainability award for his work on cellulosic ethanol, the API and about 8 or nine other sources I have personally interviewed in the past month or so on an issue I have been covering since it was all about ADM moving more corn-product with congressional help. In fact, there is far more similarities of position than difference between big oil and big agribusiness on this issue. Both big and small oil can now get a piece of that subsidy support.
Biofuels have a "role to play" but are not seen as a solution to our energy consumption even by those on the front line of promoting biofuels. Frankly, IMO, that role has little to do with the environment :) You want to reduce transportation emissions? Slap a $2 per gallon tax on fuel not used for commercial purposes. Let's see how much will there is for that even with the Prius set.
Charon
-
As for switching to biofuels... if it is cost effective and when oil reaches a certain price range and if we are not allowed to discover more of it...
I have no problem with it. Let the market decide. Best way. I worked on a pit crew for a alcohol burning dragster years ago... had jets the size of your thumb. It made great power. used more than twice as much fuel tho.
So no problem... let the market decide on ethanol. It is affecting crop production right now and every study I read says that ethanol can't work without "subsidies" do you like subsidies? For the agribusiness?
I guess in your mind that George Bush is a genius right? he has been pushing e85 over electric and hybrid cars for ages.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
Firstly, the whole discussion is about the things mother nature is NOT doing.
I don`t know what discussion you are in Angus, but try the present one. :)The thing is Angus, nobody knows what mother nature will do in the future..on her own. I stress on her own. Never has, never will. Too many things are being said as fact , when in truth there cannot be due to the things occuring naturaly that cannot be factored in.
As for robbing ourselves, - well, I think actually that it is us that are robbing...mother Nature.
I think not. Mother nature is pretty hard to jack up. :)
-
Originally posted by McFarland
So you were a moonshiner too, Angus?
:rofl :lol :aok
Sorry....a Windex breakdown moment. :)
I`m still waiting on the brain surgeon moment.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
LOL... so the republicans gave it the "global climate change" moniker and NPR and the liberal media just went with it... The UN just went with it.
Try reading my post again - that's not what it says, despite whatever spin you choose to put on it.
I don't know if I am a fool but I try not to lie. I believe that you are both tho akh. I believe that you are religious in your fervor and you will say anything. I believe you are a fool because I think you believe the global warming alarmists and I think you are a liar because you intentionally skirt the real meat of any subject.
You can believe what you like. Unfortunately for you, that simple act doesn't make it true, does it now?
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
I don`t know what discussion you are in Angus, but try the present one. :)The thing is Angus, nobody knows what mother nature will do in the future..on her own. I stress on her own. Never has, never will. Too many things are being said as fact , when in truth there cannot be due to the things occuring naturaly that cannot be factored in.
I think not. Mother nature is pretty hard to jack up. :)
Our mother nature is now, due to increased research, getting more and more known. Especially the "on her own" part such as volcanic activity etc.
Meteors are now being spotted and chartered, one day, if mankind lives that long, you will find one on an intercept course.
As for the pretty hard to jack up part, (I call it screw-up), you're wrong and it should be staring you in the face. We're already on a good highway with that one. We basically have a countdown with a complete jack-up, but before there we should make an equilibrum, where nature starts jacking up our own logistics. Of course we can temporarily jack everything up with flick of a switch....
And Lazs:
"So no problem... let the market decide on ethanol."
Not just ethanol. Methanol, and bio-oil. Remember, even in scandinavia, one hectar can leave a lot of oil directly useable for engine consumption as an excess for the oil used for the process. And then there is still the biomass (leaves) that can be directly used for ethanol/methanol process, as well as the excess from the oil, which is protein feed for animals.
Of course the market in the field relies on another resource, and seems to fight against this effort...
Well, after all, what to expect. You have companies running the process from pumping, through refining, to delivery. OOOps. Do they want competition from a million sources? nooooope.
-
ok angus.. and retro to an extent...
So ethanol is great and renewable and cheap... if that is the case then why does it have to be subsidized? I mean.. I can see giving them tax breaks to start up/build refineries...even tax breaks for "exploring" new ways and products but...
If it is so great... why do you have to give tax breaks to people to con em into using it?
The subsidies seem endless... first you give the farmer tax breaks and huge subsidies to raise the crops... to the point of hurting food production such as corn in mexico... then you subsidize the refiner and give him a huge tax break... then the distributor and then the city or state that welcomes him and then the vehicle manufacturers and then the people who buy the vehicles and.. the fuel itself..
Who do you think is paying for all this? Are you figuring that into what it costs for every gallon produced? Or... do you simply favor the government getting by on that much less income?
lazs
-
akh...for either of us. But it does point out that perhaps we should be a little careful about calling people "fools and liars". At some point on this whole global warming by man thing....
the truth will come out... I have watched the "predictions" change (as have you if you are truthful) just in the last couple of years... not near as hysterical...
the reason that "global climate change" is now being used by the left...by stations like NPR... is because the jig is almost up on the "man made global warming" scam... it will get cooler no matter what we do or don't do. They need to blame us for all temp change..
The beauty of it is... with "global climate change" any change at all... even no change... anywhere and everywhere on the planet can be used to push agendas... nothing to prove.. no need... too hot? mans fault.. rained today? mans fault... too cold? mans fault.. to many or too few hurricanes... well.. you get the point.
lazs
-
charon.. thanks.. I was looking for that info myself but a search just turns up hippy sites that are short on fact and big on giddy. the numbers get buried in the avalanche of deadhead theatrics.
What it boils down to is that if you add the subsidy (that we all pay) and add up the fact you are gonna use 30% more of the stuff to do the same thing and the subsidies for farms (farm corporations really) and the increased cost in getting the stuff to the distributor...
A real cost of $1 a gallon or more extra is not far off... add this to the fact that your car will be down on power.
To make your car perform worse costs you a buck a gallon or more extra...
Do you really think people are going to be happy with that? does that seem like a viable solution at this time?
lazs
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
(http://images.main.uab.edu/imedpub/Kleenex.jpg)
:rofl :rofl :rofl :cry
Oh man, I laughed until I cried. Thanks Diablo.
In other news, did anyone stop to consider that it was putting all those Mars rovers on the surface that screwed up the Martian environment? They were doing fine until we started dicking around over there :lol
-Sik
-
Ay, I was a moonshiner. As my papaw says, "If you can do everything, you will have a constant job. If you can not, be prepared to be out of work." In other words, I constantly learn. I read as much as I can, I try to keep up with technology, I remember the olds ways, I learn new ones. As for the amount of land it takes to grow corn to both eat and make shine, it isn't much. 50 acres will feed a family. And you don't just grow corn, you grow other crops. Things such as beans, tomatoes, peas, carrots, potatoes, punkins, watermelons, cantalopes, grapes, muscidines, strawberries, onions, radishes, anything you want to eat. That's the good part of subsistance farming, you eat what you grow, and it's fresh. You know everything that went into it, and how it was grown. Cars will run fine on shine, mine ran on 200 proof well enough. Outran the police, outran the streetrods. Minor modifications to the engine, nothing real big. Ran four years before an oil line broke and it melted. Could have happened to any gas driven car. Or did the fact it was shine run make the oil line break? Trying to run any old alcohol won't work, though, it has to be at least 175 proof. Global warming isn't a religion, it's a science. And a fact. Christianity is a religion.
-
Hi RetroVirus, welcome to the wild, wacky, world of the AH O' Club
Originally posted by RetroVirus
Hey great lazs2! Your link shows a graph which indicates a consistent temperature increase, with the 0.0 line (whatever that is) being exceeded every year since 1980. :aok The "leveling off" is a tiny blip at the end of the plot - too little data to form an extrapolation.
That is an interesting comment to make in the context of climatic system modeling. Using an empirical-statistical model, that comment would be correct. Yet, empirical-statistical models seem to produce vague, unreliable, long range weather forecasts.
OTOH, using chaos equations, that little blip can produce very large changes in the weather, the stock market, FOREX, or any other system that is chaotic in nature.
The more we know, the more we know we don't know...
-
Also, this isn't just about conserving the temperature or energy, it's also about conserving the fauna and flora of this planet. We have seen the highest extinction rates now since the last great extinction - the extinction of the dinosaurs. More species have disappeared now than in any time since then. This should tell us something is wrong.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
Ay, I was a moonshiner. As my papaw says, "If you can do everything, you will have a constant job. If you can not, be prepared to be out of work." In other words, I constantly learn. I read as much as I can, I try to keep up with technology, I remember the olds ways, I learn new ones. As for the amount of land it takes to grow corn to both eat and make shine, it isn't much. 50 acres will feed a family. And you don't just grow corn, you grow other crops. Things such as beans, tomatoes, peas, carrots, potatoes, punkins, watermelons, cantalopes, grapes, muscidines, strawberries, onions, radishes, anything you want to eat. That's the good part of subsistance farming, you eat what you grow, and it's fresh. You know everything that went into it, and how it was grown. Cars will run fine on shine, mine ran on 200 proof well enough. Outran the police, outran the streetrods. Minor modifications to the engine, nothing real big. Ran four years before an oil line broke and it melted. Could have happened to any gas driven car. Or did the fact it was shine run make the oil line break? Trying to run any old alcohol won't work, though, it has to be at least 175 proof. Global warming isn't a religion, it's a science. And a fact. Christianity is a religion.
Ata boy WTG :aok Remember the old and learn the new.
As for cars not running crap on ethanol, Lazs, You're being daft, either on purpose, or it is just so, Retro has basically filled in what I was going to say, - Brazil. And Saab.
Dad's moon was about 80% when it came out after the first distilling. Guess what, you can do it again :D
-
mcfarland... I know a tiny bit about cars and fuel. I call bs on you car that "ran fine on shine"
What kind of car was it... what motor what mods were done to it? The hillbilly cops in your area must have stock model A's still if you could outrun em.
Any of you who believe his drivel can go buy a couple of gallons of alcohol and drain your tank and then try to drive your car... you won't be outrunning anyone.
I am really getting tired of this backwoods BS.l
lazs
-
On subjects like climatology and fuel, I don't know where some of you people get your delusions from. I take that back. You get them from politicians and lawyers.
Danger, the Earth's climate is heating up, we must do something now!
So what!
The Earth is still pretty damn cold right now. What is it...something like 55F average global temperature? This is one of the coldest periods in the past 600,000,000 years, where the average global temperature was 70F. And yes, the sea level was higher and there were no polar ice caps.
Danger, CO2 gas levels are increasing in the Earth's atmosphere, we must do something now!
So what!
CO2 gas is now 377ppm, up from 315ppm back in the 1959. Time to panic? I don't think so. Dinosaurs and mammals lived together, claw in paw, for hundreds of millions of years, with CO2 levels in the 1400-2000ppm range.
There is your inconvenient truth, which is conveniently left out of this debate.
-
retro... ah... so you would not subsidize the e85 by taking the road tax off it. you would take the regestration fees off..
Ok... so now you take off a fee that is 50-200 bucks a year depending on state and year of vehicle and you take away the current subsidy of 52 cents a gallon or so and add back in the road tax of about 50 cents a gallon and get rid of the subsidies for growing the corn and such from the huge agribussines farms and... take away the subsidies from the manufacturers so that...
they all pay their fair share... just like everyone else....
And then... You end up with a product that is 30% less efficient and you need 30% of but costs from 1-2 bucks a gallon more at the pump.
You may be right... I didn't get what you were saying.. I didn't think you were that crazy. Keep the meter running on that counter cause I will probly continue to overestimate you.
You said that you don't think the free market can work... that government needs to step in and force the issue. "Your ilk" should be getting pretty clear to everyone by now... have to drag you kicking and protesting into the light tho huh?
The industry itself is saying that we are probly better off with about 10% etanol in our fuel not 15 or 20. We can maybe try 5% and see if we can sustain it... it would not add to the cost of fuel at that point and only reduce mileage a little.. It would work as an octane booster at that level... I had an alcohol injector on one high compression street rod and it sorta worked. It is still done on some street rods.
As for temp change... it has changed as fast and higher in the past... it will probly change faster and go higher or lower than it has ever been in the future... that is the nature of weather... and the sun... we don't control it and no point can we say is the highest or the lowest we will "allow" or that can happen. records get broken all the time.. that is their nature... It will continue to happen no matter what we want to happen or try to do about it.
lazs
-
and retro... you fail to mention that brazil has perfect climate for raising sugar cane to make fuel and that the raising of it was heavily subsidized.
I have no problem with ethanol.. it makes for about $100 to $500 worth of modifications to older cars to make work(fuel system) and you will get about 30% less mileage per gallon of it. You will reduce green house gas by what? 10-20% you will add 30% but take away 10-20%? And.... it will have to be subsidized by big government and we will all pay for that but...
I can make a hot rod run real good on it.... I don't mind dropping from 14 mpg best to say 11 if I can raise the compression 2 points or more with the ethanol and pick up another 100 tire smoking HP.
Bring it on... In the US it will be good for the Hot rod industry. I guess if my taxes are going to pay for something it might as well be more hp for me to burn the road up with...
And... if that is all I have to do to keep you "man made global warming" nutjobs off my back then it is a bargin..
Something tells me that it won't be enough for you tho... that you are like the gun control nuts and really all about the "control" never happy. That is your religion.. your god is socialism.
It is a god that has never worked and that you can only believe in based on faith... no proof exists that it works.
lazs
-
the chart shows the temp steadily rising as the suns activity leads it to... the co2 follows along.
There is no blip in the chart till now. it is always up...even tho the temp is measured in tiny little tenths of a degree over decades... it goes up.
The co2 follows.. it goes up.. as the sun heats the planet and the oceans.. as the temp rises... even more co2 is released and... not absorbed... plants grow better tho..
The suns activity goes down for the last ten years slightly... the temp levels off and even starts to go down...
The co2...which is nothing but an indicator of how heat affects the ocean... continues to rise until the temp goes down enough for long enough for the oceans to absorb it back again.. meanwhile... plants grow better... more people eat.
I am failing to see the big crisis that we have to do something about other than we need to get some way to make power more cheaply than oil to improve everyones standard of living.
It will happen.. solar... nuke power... all getting better. ethanol.. more power but less efficient... no big deal.. I will gladly run it if it doesn't cost too much... I can always pump up my compression and use the increase in octane to pick up another 100 or so HP... I like HP.
lazs
-
But does it have to be this way? Isn’t this the result of (or lack of) govt policy? In other parts of the world the situation is totally different. In Brazil, the number of vehicles running on “flex-fuel” passed the 2 million mark within the past year – that’s 77% of all vehicles on Brazilian roads. See BBC report - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5263384.stm
Brazil has some significant differences compared to the US market. Liquid fuel consumption in much lower per capita, fuel is heavily taxed with gasoline coming in at $4.69 per gallon and pure ethanol at about $3.59 per gallon due to a lower tax, mainly. It has replaced about 50 percent of Brazilian motor fuel.
Ethanol is cheaper to produce in Brazil however, but for the following reasons:
1. An improved feedstock, sugarcane, that is not particularly viable in the US.
2. Abundant, cheap labor that is being exploited in ways that bring up accusations of human rights abuse -- both in country and abroad.
3. Ethanol is now virtually a monocrop -- the only crop produced -- which leads to long term food-to-fuel, price and general economic concerns.
4. Crude oil is still expensive. Any notable shift in crude demand/price will be a serious issue for Brazil's economy.
5. A decade or more of serious economic subsidies to get the infrastructure off the ground -- with no long term guarantee of ROI even today.
There are also some serious environmental issues in Brazil related to land misuse and straight air and water pollution, plus the concern that rainforest areas may be impacted.
Brazil has basically worked to turn itself into one huge ethanol producing machine, which is not that practical in the US.
On the other hand, while it is still a fossil fuel, Canadian oil sands also become viable with crude prices above $40/bbl. Even there though, there is not enough certainty in the industry that oil will stay above those levels to make investment in these areas comfortable.
The biggest issues with biofuels are land requirements and production costs. So far, demand FAR FAR FAR outstrips these limiters. Cellulosic ethanol, or miracle feedstocks like algae for biodiesel hold promise, but there is no clear indication of any immediate breakthroughs (though one could potentially happen any time). Any global warming concerns aside (real or imagined) petroleum is still the only viable fuel source to meet world energy demand (short of Nuclear for power).
To change that would involve a total reorganization of developed society and infrastructure in numerous areas and at an expense that would likely rival the cost of WW2 by the time it was complete with similar social impacts (not the death, but the change and sacrifice at the home front). Triple or quadruple public transportation. punitive gasoline taxes. Force an end to, and then a reversal of, urban sprawl. Mandate electric cars for urban residents (can rent a diesel for road trips) etc. charged by nuclear power plants. Auto mileage standards twice as demanding as they are now for liquid fuel cars. Manhattan Project or Apollo level funded fuel cell research..
We could do relatively minor adjustments to notably drop gasoline price, but to make big changes in fossil fuel consumption require big changes. There is no magic bullet anymore for the US, though the geography of Europe can help over there. Asia could do it "right" since it is largely just starting to develop, but will it?
Charon
-
""The Canadian oil sands have been in commercial production since the original Great Canadian Oil Sands (now Suncor) mine began operation in 1967. ""
-
Charon, you hit the nail on head; oil is still the cheapest form of energy.
Reading these posts, one would think that Brazil and Sweden are oh, so, enlightened, while the evil US, lead by the Bush/Exxon cabal, relentlessly forces us to burn oil. I did not know that in 2006, the US was the worlds number one producer of bio-fuel, followed by Brazil and then China.
Another inconvenient truth perhaps?
Sweden, Sweden, Sweden, shame on you. Didn't you read my posts last year, where Beetle and I debated the merits of bio-fuel? Our 4.29 billion gallons of bio-fuel produced last year, consumed 1.9 billion bushels of grain. Yes, the very same grain that used to feed the malnourished millions in Africa and South East Asia. Starve a child...feed a Saab.
It is United States policy, at least under this president, that our transportation system will be hydrogen based. We can use a combination of nuclear, solar, coal, wind, and hydro-electric power to produce the hydrogen.
Hydrogen fuel would currently cost some $8 per gallon. General Electric has developed a new electrolysis process, which could bring this down to $3 per gallon. As Charon pointed out, the real cost is in changing our infrastructure to support hydrogen.
Oh, and yes, the evil US leads the world in hydrogen fuel cell and hydrogen storage technology. You see, we are trying to provide the people with a cheap, environmentally safe, renewable fuel supply, and still feed those malnourished millions. WTG US...:aok
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The hillbilly cops in your area must have stock model A's still if you could outrun em.
There was thunder, thunder, thunder on thunder road.
Thunder was his engine and white light`n was his load.
And there was moonshine, moonshine to quench the devil`s thirst.
The law, they swore they`d get him, but the devil got him first.
:aok
-
Jesse would be amazed at the new, improved, self-robbing society.
It would take all of the fun out of it, but he would still be amazed.
Angus, "jack up" or"jacked up"........=robbing, hijacking.
Not to be confused with Gretchen`s "All Jacked Up'. That`s a whole new ballgame and I`m on first. :)
-
"CO2 gas is now 377ppm, up from 315ppm back in the 1959. Time to panic? "
Actually, yes.
" Dinosaurs and mammals lived together, claw in paw, for hundreds of millions of years, with CO2 levels in the 1400-2000ppm range."
They got booted off, - mostly.
The climate in ancient times was swinging indeed, and for some odd reason there was no intelligent life spawning properly untill the climate settled. Our logistics could definately never cope with a proper dino 1400 ppm climate.
Now put 315 and a 377 on a timescale 1959 to 2007 and extend that for...only a thousand years. What do you get? Use excel, or a paper and a ruler.
-
Thank you for the info.
Can I now use Icelandic slang to make things clearer?
Things like:
"Eins og hrafnar á hræi"
-
Originally posted by Rotax447
Starve a child...feed a Saab.
Sig material.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Thank you for the info.
Can I now use Icelandic slang to make things clearer?
Things like:
"Eins og hrafnar á hræi"
Sure you can, but homey don`t swim. :)
-
But a carcass with gulls on it will, untill the air goes out, hehe :t
-
And the escaping one would be...methane :D
-
....starting at 15c per barrel....
-
retro... I admit that I don't know much about how sweden does it... I have to think that it would not transfer over well to our economy and scale tho... If they have to buy all their ethanol I don't see how they can be used as an example.
Brazil is a better one. It has been explained why they are able to do it on such a grand scale and how it would not work here the way they are doing it.
I have nothing against adding alcohol to the mix for the reasons I have stated but if that is your entire cure for what you call "man made global warming" then the "crisis" can't be much.
lazs
-
angus... with high temps you get some increase in co2.. a minor greenhouse gas.. estimate show that up to 800 ppm of co2 will be not only not harmful to humans but will increase crop production
As the temp goes down co2 will go down. It will be re-absorbed into the oceans but crop production will of course... go down.
We can only hope that the current cooling trend does not get to bad.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
They got booted off, - mostly.
Dino's got discoed entirely by a big rock. So whats the point?
The climate in ancient times was swinging indeed, and for some odd reason there was no intelligent life spawning properly untill the climate settled. Our logistics could definately never cope with a proper dino 1400 ppm climate.
No, the climate remained relatively stable, and much warmer than it is today.
For some odd reason, no mammal could develop a body size large enough to support a three pound brain, until the dinosaurs died off.
Sure it could...when your grandchildren go to the Icelandic beach, they will sit under a palm tree, wax their surf board, and wait for The Big Kahuna.
Now put 315 and a 377 on a timescale 1959 to 2007 and extend that for...only a thousand years. What do you get? Use excel, or a paper and a ruler.
At the present burn rate we have what, 100 to 200 years of fossil fuel left? I don't need Excel for that, only my brain.
-
yep... much as I like to think that someone will be driving my 69 el camino or 55 Healey 1,000 years from now... even 100 years from now... it isn't gonna happen...
As we run out of oil something else will come up. No big deal... nothing to worry about.
lazs
-
The USA would also like to do this, but continues to import most of its oil from OPEC countries. As for oil being relatively cheap as Rotax said, that's probably true in part because not enough flex-fuel/ethanol is being produced to realise economies of scale. And, I read today that the price of oil is nudging $78/bbl. As long as demand stays high, so will the price. But the rising price will stimulate the development of alternative fuels.
That is accurate in spirit, but the limiter still comes down to current ethanol production technologies, climate/crop choices and raw land. There is a current ethanol mandate for an increase in ethanol in gasoline to 7.5 billion gallons per year by 2012 with a current consumption of 140 billion gallons of gasoline per year. The ethanol folk folk are comfortable with meeting this quantity. This should, I believe, allow for national e-10 or thereabouts and patches of e-85 like today, primarily in the Midwest.
The Bush proposal to up that to 35 billion gallons (still well short of total gasoline demand) by 2017 is seen by most parties, even folk in the ethanol lobby, as being unobtainable without cellulosic ethanol. At best this would displace about 5 percent of fossil motor fuels which would not significantly impact our dependence on foreign oil. Also, for cars equipped with oxygen sensor technology (virtually all today) ethanol is an environment wash -- reducing some emissions while making gasoline more volatile leading to vapor pollution issues. Even California has backed off of the environmental angle.
The real choice to both reduce our dependence on foreign oil and our greenhouse gas emissions is to radically change our living, working and commuting infrastructure model. Not easy, and at this point (and likely for many decades) not absolutely necessary. Gas prices at $3 per gallon seem to be manageable and in line with the inflation adjusted prices of 1981. Not pleasant by any means, and adding inflationary costs but manageable. I don't see a will for that kind of change.
Charon
-
(http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/0506/Oct31_05/img/051031_Gore.jpg)
All Praise the Sun Goddess
-
Originally posted by Charon
There is a current ethanol mandate for an increase in ethanol in gasoline to 7.5 billion gallons per year by 2012 with a current consumption of 140 billion gallons of gasoline per year.
I'm more ignorant of Energy policy than I am of the Duke Lacrosse trial. So help me out here.
1 gallon of Ethanol does not equal the energy output of 1 gallon of gasoline does it? I mean even in this thread there is talk about the disparity between the two. So Perhaps we should find a better indicator than gallons produced to demonstrate the fulfillment of energy needs in the country? I mean, if we consume 140 billion gallons of gasoline per year does that mean that we would have to consume MORE gallons of ethanol for the same result?
Anyhow, it would be nice to have a single unit that could cross over each of the various ways that we push a car down the street.
-Sik
-
1 gallon of Ethanol does not equal the energy output of 1 gallon of gasoline does it? I mean even in this thread there is talk about the disparity between the two. So Perhaps we should find a better indicator than gallons produced to demonstrate the fulfillment of energy needs in the country? I mean, if we consume 140 billion gallons of gasoline per year does that mean that we would have to consume MORE gallons of ethanol for the same result?
A gallon of ethanol has about 70 percent of the energy content of a gallon of gasoline, leading to a similar 30 percent reduction in mileage at e-100 which makes the loss in mileage most noticeable at the common highest e-85 concentration. So yes, you do have to produce about 30 percent more for an equal displacement.
On a side note, ethanol is an octane enhancer, which provides horsepower benefits but not mileage benefits. These benefits are best realized at lower e-10 concentrations.
Where energy balance is concerned, crude oil tends to deliver a 5 to 1 ratio -- five units of energy produced for each unit of energy consumed in production and distribution. Biodiesel is actually somewhat comparable, with most of the cost coming from feedstock prices and transportation. Transportation issues are easier to overcome with biodiesel. Ethanol produces either a .75 or 1.35 to 1 energy balance (depending upon which research you accept).
Charon
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Jesse would be amazed at the new, improved, self-robbing society.
It would take all of the fun out of it, but he would still be amazed.
Angus, "jack up" or"jacked up"........=robbing, hijacking.
Not to be confused with Gretchen`s "All Jacked Up'. That`s a whole new ballgame and I`m on first. :)
If you're referring to Jesse James, he was no thief. Sure, he got money, but he wasn't in it just for money. He was in it to get back at the yankees. To take away their money. He was in it at the last to get the men responsible for the murder of his little brother who was crippled, and the injury to his mother when they threw an explosive in the window of his mother's house. But that's off the subject. As for self robbing society, you are right. We are robbing our future generations of clean air and a better place to live.
Yes, CO2 goes up after the temperature. But it also causes the temperature to rise, which releases more, and that causes the temperature to go up again. It's a natural cycle there. But then we add to it with our factories and our cars. Which puts even more into the air, more than the plants can take in. As we burn the rainforests, it produces more CO2, and also gets rid of the plants that would take in CO2.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
yep... much as I like to think that someone will be driving my 69 el camino or 55 Healey 1,000 years from now... even 100 years from now... it isn't gonna happen...
As we run out of oil something else will come up. No big deal... nothing to worry about.
lazs
Getcha one of these and who knows.
(http://www.amquix.info/humor/magnet/flux_generator.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
There was thunder, thunder, thunder on thunder road.
Thunder was his engine and white light`n was his load.
And there was moonshine, moonshine to quench the devil`s thirst.
The law, they swore they`d get him, but the devil got him first.
:aok
Didn't realize someone else on this board was enlightened to Thunder Road. In fact, that happened right around here. Engines will run on shine, and very well. As for the changes, I don't know exactly what my papaw did, I'd have to ask him. I know it outran every car around here. And I also know the old moonshiners ran their cars on their own shine. It was how they got it through the road blocks. It was the one place the police wouldn't think to check. And the cars ran fine on it. As for you say sugar doesn't grow well in the US, well maybe so. It doesn't have to. Corn grows well, as do many grains, and many other things will ferment to make alcohol. And the slop that's left over after the distilation can be fed to animals, hogs especially like it. There isn't much waste. It's a very efficient process.
-
Careful there. Jacka1 has claimed that rainforests add carbon to the atmosphere because they're rotting.
-
Charon, as always, brought up excellent points. We do have decades to make a transition, so I see no (outside of political) reasons to press the panic button now.
Corn and wheat prices are at a ten year high. The world has about a 60 day supply of carryover grain stocks, the lowest supply in 30 years. Egypt, Mexico, and Japan, all large importers of US corn, are very concerned. If we decrease corn exports, Mexico and the Sub-Sahara, where corn is a staple food, would be the hardest hit.
Since we are not making more oil, (at least not anywhere near the rate we are consuming it), bio-fuel is a necessary supplement. But the people who believe that we can simply grow 140 billion gallons of gasoline per year are deluding themselves.
Lazs is right when he said that something else will come up. That something is hydrogen. It has nothing to do with delusions, mysticism, or wishful thinking. It is a matter of physics and engineering. It is the most abundant element in the universe. It can be extracted from water and produces oxygen as a by-product. When recombined with oxygen, it produce energy and water as a by-product.
-
Here you go;
http://automobiles.honda.com/future-cars/fcx-concept.aspx
The future is closer than many think...
-
Big blocks like the EU have been paying substities to keep land out of use. I belive that the highest numbers there were 10% of fields in the EU.
There is lots of land available in the western world to produce biofuel.
As for the Hydrogen, it needs energy to be seperated. However, if that is fuel burn, the efficency of burning any form of fuel, turning it into electric, seperating H and then gasing up with it, is well inside the ballpark. The benefit is that pollution will be restricted to the power plant, which can use comples systems to clean up, - something vastly superior to what you can fit in any car. That means cities without smog.
BTW, in the city of Reykjavík they have some buses already running on Hydrogen.
-
Originally posted by Angus
As for the Hydrogen, it needs energy to be seperated. However, if that is fuel burn, the efficency of burning any form of fuel, turning it into electric, seperating H and then gasing up with it, is well inside the ballpark. The benefit is that pollution will be restricted to the power plant, which can use comples systems to clean up, - something vastly superior to what you can fit in any car. That means cities without smog.
Very true Angus. And if the power plants are nuclear (perhaps fusion), solar, wind, geothermal, or hydro, then particle pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions are nil. This is our future.
BTW, in the city of Reykjavík they have some buses already running on Hydrogen.
I used to believe the Swedes were enlightened...not any more. WTG Iceland.:aok
-
Call me a left-wing wuss, but with 800,000,000 souls on this planet severely malnourished, and 6,000,000 children dying every year from starvation, I don't get a real warm, fuzzy, feeling, over the “Food For Fuel” program.
Perhaps Sweden will donate a Saab to each of these children. At least they will 'starve in style'...
-
mcfarland... your "paw paw" fixed your car for you and you don't even know what kind it was or what kind of motor or what he did to it? Mr... "self sufficent" can't even make a car run without his daddy?
Did daddy drive it for you too? If you broke down did you just push it off the road and call daddy on your cell?
Moonshiners did not run on their own shine. There were some who tried up to 10% alcohol but the thing with running shine was that you didn't want a 40 gallon gas tank to run alcohol through the jets... you didn't want the weight and you didn't want a car that you couldn't fill up with gas anywhere.
I went to arkansas every year as a kid and got to talk to the old moonshiners there... they knew I was interested in "old fast cars" and loved to pull the tarp off or some old moonshiners rig or another. supercharged 57 Fords... 40 chevies with 320 inch GMC 6's in em.... bunches of early fords and plymouths with olds motors and cad v8's in em. they ran on gasoline.
You don't add alcohol to your tank and get more hp.. you get less..even if you jet it rich enough to run. You need to do a lot of things to make the car get more hp out of the less energy but higher octane alcohol.
sheesh... this backwoodsy folk wisdom is all fun to listen to and all until you start to get specific... then it becomes apparent that you not only talk like an idiot but that you are one.
maybe you should just shut up tho and let me talk to your daddy since he is the one who knows what is under your hood.
lazs
-
angus.... retro...whoever..
I got no problem with ethanol... 10% is best for me but any amount will make me faster.
I got no problem with solar... I hope it gets better fast.. I want to run my house on a couple of panels..
I got no problem with hydrogen...
I got no problem with nuke plants... I wouldn't mind everything that took energy to make being cheaper.
What I got a problem with is the same buffoons who gave us public school and social security asking for money to run any program.
What I got a problem with is phony science used to create a doomsday scenario so that I have to give money and power to scumbags like algore.
lazs
-
mcfarland.. there is no end to your folksy wisdom is there?
Jesse james was a cold blooded killer and theif. He shot men women and children and he rode with the bloodiest raiders of the civil war. He had no problem with burning people alive or shooting women down in the street during the war. You need to listen less to your daddy and read some history.
By the time the pinkertons had blown up his moms home... jesse had already become a cold blooded killer and theif...
As for co2... it follows the temp change... if the temp goes up.. it goes up.. if the temp goes down.. it goes down.
If the suns activity goes down... there is no amount of co2 that will stop the temp of the planet from going down. Not any that is possible for us to breath that is.
They don't even talk about man made global warming any more.. it is now "global climate change" the truth is.. the temp is leveling off and going down because the suns activity is going down.
I can't wait to hear how that is our fault and what we have to do to avert the coming ice age. how only the scientists and algore can save us from frezzing to death.
lazs
-
Big blocks like the EU have been paying substities to keep land out of use. I belive that the highest numbers there were 10% of fields in the EU.
There is lots of land available in the western world to produce biofuel.
But, there is not enough land to produce biofuels using current feed stocks to replace our dependence on petroleum. Not even close. The EU will be happy with a 5 percent replacement by 2010. And as the focus and incentives have shifted to biofuel crops, demand driven commodity price increase have followed and in a free market farmers will choose to produce fuel feed stocks over food feed stocks. Still won't come anywhere close to meeting fuel demands, but will have an impact on food and fuel prices both directly and through the subsidy (tax) supports.
Take the top current biodiesel feedstock -- Chinese tallow. About 700 gallons per acre, but no alternative food uses for the crop and limited climate choices (eliminating much of the US and Northern Europe as with Palm, the second highest yielder). Strictly a food to fuel conversion per acre. Soy, which is dual use and more flexible in climate produces about 48 gallons per acre. If algae comes through, you are talking about 5000 gallons per acre and the ability to develop algae farms in otherwise nonagricultural areas. That gets exciting. But the cold flow "gelling" properties of biodiesel still limits concentrations to about 5 percent mixed with petroleum diesel in colder climates during the winter months. In Chicago, for example, you might only have 4-5 months where you could operate with a B-20 blend or higher.
Charon
-
talking to maintenance cheifs in other cities like beserkly.... they claim that biodiesel in more than 20% is killing some very expensive engines.. like in garbage trucks and buses... they feel that the poor flowing characteristics combined with a lack of lubricity is doing it..
Guy said he could stick his head in the holes in the block when the almost new motors blew. He said they looked like they had been running without oil. This was with the 80% stuff and lowering the amount has pretty much solved the problem.
lazs
-
Ay, I've known about the government paying people not to farm. I know a guy that the government offered to pay him not to farm and grow food. He promptly told the government where they could stick their money. Same as any of us would have done. As for what model, it was a 1948 Chevy. I am self sufficient. I can work on gas powered cars, I just don't have the knowledge to completely rework an engine yet. And no, it is not my dad, it is my papaw. My Dad can't fix an engine in worse disrepair than a bad spark plug. Maybe you should learn how to talk right before you begin trying to talk me down. Calling us idiots and saying "it's the sun stupid" just makes you look even more the fool. There is nothing wrong with public school, there is nothing wrong with any of us. It isn't phony science. It isn't a doomsday scenario. So get those backwards notions out of your head first off. It will also take more than two normal sized solar panels to power a house.
@ Charon: Yes, biodiesel does gel at low temperatures, but shine does not. It is very rarely cold enough to freeze shine, and at those temps gas and oil would freeze. Shine was often added to radiators as a cheap antifreeze. It worked very well. You can grow food and fuel on the same land. The mash used to make whiskey can be fed to hogs after it is distilled. As can many other by products of fermentation and distillation.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
Didn't realize someone else on this board was enlightened to Thunder Road. In fact, that happened right around here. Engines will run on shine, and very well. As for the changes, I don't know exactly what my papaw did, I'd have to ask him. I know it outran every car around here. And I also know the old moonshiners ran their cars on their own shine. It was how they got it through the road blocks. It was the one place the police wouldn't think to check. And the cars ran fine on it. As for you say sugar doesn't grow well in the US, well maybe so. It doesn't have to. Corn grows well, as do many grains, and many other things will ferment to make alcohol. And the slop that's left over after the distilation can be fed to animals, hogs especially like it. There isn't much waste. It's a very efficient process.
What I don't understand is why Boss Hogg didn't have Sheriff Coltrain utilize STATEWIDE law enforcement resources to help lock down you and Luke. I mean, clearly you were using the county limits to facilitate your illegal activities, so this should have been a no brainer.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by McFarland
there is nothing wrong with any of us.
Holy ****! It's Dr. Phil.
-Sik
-
Lazs:
"What I got a problem with is the same buffoons who gave us public school and social security asking for money to run any program."
There are quite many countries that almost exclusively have a public school system as well as a public health care system.
If you draw the Europeans out, they are there, and the output is a higher level of education and better health care than the USA. Unless you are stone rich.
"What I got a problem with is phony science used to create a doomsday scenario so that I have to give money and power to scumbags like algore."
Well, what would be a doomsday scenario for mankind today has already occured by itself many times on the planet after there was advanced life. It has not occured since there was some intelligent life to speak of, - beginning with homo cromagnon.
As for the phoney science that are your words against facts.
Then on to fuels. Charon. You have well considered inputs.
Europe will not grow the energy it needs. But it can reduce imports of it by a lot. It can grow a lot that is not being grown. With less than 10% of the area used for agriculture, which is the main food source for mankind, on that densely populated "YOU-rope", the whole food is produced with a complete emissional balance. That's better than nothing.
As for performance and figures about the crops used, check out food rape. (raps). A good hectar (acre is 0.45) will give 3 tonnes of rape seed. Out of that you get oil and material for "cake", - high protein and mineral cattle feed. Then you have a huge amount of biomass as well. (carbon fiber. CARBON. The thing burns easily if dry, - just like straw). But anyway Charon, good to have an educated input ;)
Then back to Lasz:
"Guy said he could stick his head in the holes in the block when the almost new motors blew. He said they looked like they had been running without oil. This was with the 80% stuff and lowering the amount has pretty much solved the problem."
This is a technical issue. It has not much to do with "bio" at all. You can technically make the finest fuel in the world from "bio".
As well as that what I've read, even on the websited from the oil companies, - that the biodiesel is actually considered better.
As for the winter temperatures, - that is a technical issue as well. Let me know, - after all, I live in Iceland ;)
-
Originally posted by McFarland
Didn't realize someone else on this board was enlightened to Thunder Road. In fact, that happened right around here.
LOL It happened damned near everywhere. Around these neck of the woods it went on far past the repeal of prohibition. Even though alcohol was legaly available, it was not available to a lot unless long distances were driven to buy it. There was always someone willing to br9ng in the shine and make it real handy to obtain. Others bootlegged legaly produced booze into dry counties and places where it was not readily had. Still do. :)
Engines will run on shine, and very well.
Nope. A waste of time.
And I also know the old moonshiners ran their cars on their own shine. It was how they got it through the road blocks. It was the one place the police wouldn't think to check. And the cars ran fine on i
Nope. I think where you may be getting your spurs tangled up in your bloomers is on the tank issue. There usualy was a tank full of shine, sometimes even a regular gas tank, but it did not run the engine , nor was it connected to the fuel line. It ran the shiner`s pocket book instead. :)
Hint....never run a partialy full shine or booze tank........................o r so I`ve been told. :lol
-
mcfarland... I have owned 2 47 chevies, a 48 and a couple of 40 and 41's
These cars come equipped with a 216 cubic inch six with a one barrel carb and a dipper system for oiling the rods and with partial oil pressure system at about 15 lbs... they use babbit bearings....not even inserts.
There... now you know more about your car than you did when "pawpaw" built it for you and told you it was running on moonshine.
lazs
-
Originally posted by RetroVirus
So I don’t know where this “starve a child, feed a saab” claptrap came from. Must be the latest redneck mantra… :lol
he was referring to the 4th world countries, we have to feed the children so they can grow up and produce more starving children for us to feed.
-
retro and angus... I really think that it would be good if you looked at this site....
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
It pretty much explains how I feel about the whole thing... It is well written and footnoted and their are layers of links to go to.
It is every bit as "opptomistic" as I am and explains that we are in a natural and... so far as climate goes... benign and benificial warm period...
It explains some of the real causes for global climate and its changes and some of the shoddy and dishonest things the alarmists do to make their case. It has interesting quotes from top people in the field like...
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory)
(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)
"In the United States...we have to first convince the American People and the Congress that the climate problem is real."
former President Bill Clinton in a 1997 address to the United Nations
"In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disciplined language of science by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy may be one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current debate over global warming."
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
(leading climate and atmospheric science expert- MIT) (3)
"Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata."
Dr. William Gray
(Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction )
(in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 1999)
"Science should be both compelling and widely accepted before Federal regulations are promulgated."
Dr. David L. Lewis
(27-year veteran of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
critic of the agency's departure from scientific rationale in favor of political agenda)
(in an interview for Nature Magazine, June 27, 1996)
"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."
Petr Chylek
(Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)
Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting.
(Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001) (8)
"Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
Tim Wirth , while U.S. Senator, Colorado.
After a short stint as United Nations Under-Secretary for Global Affairs (4)
he now serves as President, U.N. Foundation, created by Ted Turner and his $1 billion "gift"
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada
recent quote from the Calgary Herald
lazs
-
Just a little question and then some info:
Is there anyone on this BB AGAINST the concept of the western world growing as much biofuel as they can?
And FYI, engines can run just fine on ethanol, methanol, as well as rapeseed oil. Engines as well as carburettors etc can also be built especially for running on those fuels. After all, a diesel will run nicely on rapeseed oil, - straight and crude, ust filtered.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada
recent quote from the Calgary Herald
lazs
That says it all right there doesn't it?
-
With the billions and billions of people on earth, there is no way we have had an impact on the environment. Even if we humans have doomed the earth, we will not be a live to see the end...So who cares, right? I'm only concerned about me and my life, I don't care about the polar ice caps melting away. I hope they do melt so I can be closer to the beach. I'm going to continue driving my 9 mpg SUV as much as I can to spite those scientists who think the world is in danger....ha.
-
retro... but the facts remain that co2 is a minor little player in greenhouse gas... It is still water vapor and other gasees that is about 99.72% of greenhouse gas even when adjusted for contribution strength and... we can do nothing...yep total nada zp nothing about that... the rest.... methane and such..our contribution is small. we can't do much so... we (the alarmists) are left with co2..
be it the 6 billion tons or 29 billion tons...it is still a tiny little fraction of the amount that nature produces... the total contribution of co2 to greenhouse gas is what? 2-3% or so... and then... only about 0.1-0-2% of all the co2 contribution is mans..
We are talking about reducing with the most draconian measures of kyoto about 30% of that tiny little fraction... no sane person would even feel like it was worth it. even if you use the most alarmist figures of 42 billion tons by 2050 or whatever... say they are not exaggerating this time (LOL).. it is still in the tenths of a percent of total greenhouse gas... an algore fart to the planet.
The satalite data for the last 2 decades is indeed for the US... it is, after all our program. It shows that the data that many of the "scientists" are using for ground stations is flawed... if it is flawed here... and the alarmists are using it anyway... why not elsewhere? there is an ethical problem pointed out at least.
as for being written by an American for Americans... you might want to follow a few of the links... the real meat of the thing.. look at the footnotes.. they are international in scope.
lazs
-
So what are we left with? the sun is doing the heating and cooling... we are fortunate to be in a warming cycle on a planet that is known for being in an ice age most of the time... life is good.
despite the dire warnings... we are better off now than almost any time in history...more food production... better standard of living... tied to warm climate.
even if the alarmists models are not that far off...we heat a degree or two... degrees...the effect will be good not bad... most of the planet will notice the increase in milder winters and maybe warmer nights.. most of the effect will not be on making the warmer times warmer so much as making the freezing times fraction warmer.
So what are the alarmist left with? Nothing bad will happen... we can't do anything much about it (a tenth or two of a percent is nothing) without crippling whole economies.... so..
They simply get shrill.... yep... It is the fault of selfish Americans... we are against radical change because we are "antienvironmentalists"
Or... sink to the pitiful... lazs hates us because we want his hot rod to run on ethanol...
The last is typical... I have said... bring it on.. I will go from 500 hp to 600 hp with a weekend of tuning... more hp more octane... oh yeah... hurt me some more!
I am the anti environment? I bet I use less of everything than retro. I use a hundredth of what his god algore does.
The planet heated and cooled without us for eons...more than it has now... it has had more c02 5 times more and it was a very good time for the planet.. the entire universe heats and cools just like us... why do you suppose that is?
lazs
-
retro... we have nothing against making ethanol so long as it does not tax us or starve anyone or destroy economies.
Can you tell me what would happen tho if we made the best sustainable effort and produced say... 5-10% of our fuel as ethanol? there would still be co2 production from this percent remember but... how much would that reduce the 0.1 or so % of mans contribution to greenhouse gas? could it even be measured?
would it change the temperature of the planet (using the most wild computer models) a hundreth of a degree in 5 decades?
it hurts nothing tho to try... so long as...well... so long as it hurts nothing... so long as it is not forced. Why pay more for nothing? If oil prices go up then it makes sense... for instance... if the true cost of ethanol is $5 a gallon and another buck or so for taxes... well... when gasoline gets to be over $6 a gallon at the pump... ethanol will replace it
That is the way it should work.
No one here including your high priests of doom knows what we will have for tools 20-100 years from now or what the sun will do (although indications and history call for cooling)... to tell me I have to "do something" even tho it is a pimple on a hippos butt to make you feel better is insulting to me.
I can see that normal climate change affects tiny little islands and all but unpopulated frozen north countries more than us and that the fever to "do something" about the forces of nature would be stonger to a people who recall in the not too far past their river through london freezing over... normal swings affect you more.
the fact remains that for most of us...there has been no change in the last two decades to speak of and we aren't convinced that we have more than a negligible affect... for almost everyone.. this normal heating cycle has been a boon... and will only get better till the suns activity slows or the earth tilts or whatever changes the weather again to a cooler cycle.. that is what is to be feared... the ice... not the palm tree.
lazs
-
Any recyclable form of energy, - basically using the sun in some practical way, - is IMHO opinion good.
You did not, as far as I can see, answer the question about it though.
As for the economical side, there are strong forces at work. It's short time profit, with no goal on a long scale. Strong forces that want to keep things as they are while possible. Forces that will use all means and a lot of propoganda. Unlike the scattered scientists that tend to spend a lot of time debating each others.
However, established science cannot been rattled, and I'll give you two facts.
1. The mass of the water in the glacial caps is more than the mass of earth's atmosphere.
2. Since we are warming so fast, that the melting ice doesn't even chill down the seawater a bit, there is NO reason to worry about cooling.
And a bonus. The planet has frozen quite a bit, but none of the major catastrophies on the planet occured from cooling. It was the opposite. However, an overwarming planet like Venus is....dead. Without greenhouse effect, Venus would actually be inhabitable. And there is no "SUN-STUPID" answer to that one, since Venus is much closer than we are.
-
Retro, just wanted to point out that your little diagram fails to illustrate all of the coal and natural gas that your ethanol plant would consume.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
If you're referring to Jesse James, he was no thief.
Step away from the crack pipe. :rofl
-
Originally posted by Angus
Careful there. Jacka1 has claimed that rainforests add carbon to the atmosphere because they're rotting.
We will never have to worry about more vegetation , trees , etc. again.
You never followed through with the Ancient Egyptian recruitment plan. :D
-
You have to learn how to read. I perfectly recall the Egyptian quote. It's about what they are doing today. Venting the nile all over the place and growing plants on what used to be a desert.
You see, Egyptians still exist today.
-
Originally posted by Angus
You have to learn how to read. I perfectly recall the Egyptian quote. It's about what they are doing today. Venting the nile all over the place and growing plants on what used to be a desert.
You see, Egyptians still exist today.
You don`t recall too clearly. I put you in charge of recruiting a few million Ancient Eygptians willing to die of disease and slavery . You didn`t follow through. :)
As far as the present day goes, aren`t you afraid of them destroying the ecosystem of the desert? :aok
-
Where are you trying to pull this thread?
The Egyptian program, AFAIK, is the largest program in the world in it's field, - i.e. irrigation/turning desert into a system of food-producing fields.
As for the deserts, they have only a warming effect, practically no contribution for carbon binding, they're dry, there's plenty of them, and plenty more....on Mars :D
-
Plants will grow in a cool temperate climate better than they will in a tropical one, as there is no rest period in a tropical one, and the seasons are wet and dry, not cold and hot. Most plants don't live very well in a hot climate. Global warming isn't good. It causes stronger, more frequent storms, more desert areas, and higher sea levels. In other words, less arible land. And thus food shortages.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
Plants will grow in a cool temperate climate better than they will in a tropical one, as there is no rest period in a tropical one, and the seasons are wet and dry, not cold and hot. Most plants don't live very well in a hot climate. Global warming isn't good. It causes stronger, more frequent storms, more desert areas, and higher sea levels. In other words, less arible land. And thus food shortages.
(http://www.koppelquests.net/IMAGES/May_1/images/IMGP6025.jpg)
A naturalist in the Amazon Rainforest collects specimins for her study of the poor growing conditions...
-
Yes, plants that are adapted to grow there. Cut down the trees, plow it, and plant crops there, and the top soil erodes away very quickly, and doesn't support plants very well. Leave the other plants there, and the crops are smothered out. Not many food plants can be grown very well there.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
Yes, plants that are adapted to grow there.
You said plants don't grow there very well, now you say that some plants don't grow there very well.
Cut down the trees, plow it, and plant crops there, and the top soil erodes away very quickly, and doesn't support plants very well.
Kind of like the Oklahoma dust bowl huh?
Leave the other plants there, and the crops are smothered out.
That's why we don't need to spray pesticides and herbicides in our temperate farming practices.
Not many food plants can be grown very well there.
If you're not counting pineapples, bananas, mangos, coconuts, papayas, cassava, watermelon, yams, sweet corn, onions, lettuce, peppers, sweet potatoes, rice, sugar cane, millet, sorghum, and peanuts, among many others.
-
watermelon, yams, sweet corn, onions, lettuce, peppers, sweet potatoes
Which have to be grown in open areas, and only corn, peppers, yams, and potatoes keep for very long times. And if you cut down the rainforest to make an open area, the top soil washes away and you don't have very good soil in one or two years. So it's not worth it.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
Plants will grow in a cool temperate climate better than they will in a tropical one, as there is no rest period in a tropical one, and the seasons are wet and dry, not cold and hot. Most plants don't live very well in a hot climate. Global warming isn't good. It causes stronger, more frequent storms, more desert areas, and higher sea levels. In other words, less arible land. And thus food shortages.
where did you mention rainforest? Much of the tropics is not rainforest...
Originally posted by McFarland
Which have to be grown in open areas, and only corn, peppers, yams, and potatoes keep for very long times. And if you cut down the rainforest to make an open area, the top soil washes away and you don't have very good soil in one or two years. So it's not worth it.
ahh there is where you mentioned rainforest...
tsk tsk tsk...no fair changing your argument
-
LOL, here comes a word from the farmer.
Plants grow better in warmer climate, and it's almost on a logarythmic scale...untill the peak is reached, and after that the road goes down into zero very quickly.
Warm is better than cold, hot is no better than warm.
Hot hot has almost nothing between a forest and a desert. If you loose the soil, you also loose the water. And BTW, what's teasing them in S-America is that they burn down the rainforest, cultivate the rich soil, and basically milk it dry, typically by planting coffee for so and so many years, then when the soil is becoming too poor for it it goes to pasture, and eventually ends up as a prarie. Welcome to the world of cheaper beef and coffee. Beef at prices I can't beat at least.
As for what Retro said:
"No, because once enough ethanol had been produced, the ethanol plant itself would run on ethanol! "
hehe, very true.
Funny, somehow I can feel some people resisting the concept of "growing" energy, while not feeling safe or informed enough to directly oppose it.
-
Well, in your picture you show a rainforest, and say "plenty of plants", but the problem is where there isn't rainforest, there is either desert or infertile ground. So, I mentioned rainforest.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
Well, in your picture you show a rainforest, and say "plenty of plants", but the problem is where there isn't rainforest, there is either desert or infertile ground. So, I mentioned rainforest.
I said "Plenty of plants"? where did I say that?
Here is a picture of tropical fertile ground that is niether desert nor rainforest.
(http://www.tmdg.co.uk/photography/photos/ricepaddy.jpg)
It must be frustrating to be as consistantly wrong as you seem to be.
-
May I point out that there is ample water there.
That is sometimes the problem.....
-
I notice you bypassed the question. :D
-
Shrug untill you dislocate a shoulder :D
-
Where I live, we pay some 4x as much for gas as you do, - or more?
And we get on just fine :D
Lifestandard is good, and life expectancy is record breaking.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Shrug untill you dislocate a shoulder :D
Easy enough to bypass the question.
Too scary?
-
retro... you make no sense. and... you have not "told you so".
If you are beetle as I suspect then you have told us nothing in the past... I, and many others here have always said the oil will become more expensive... it is getting scarcer... supply and demand. that is the way it should work.
cost will drive whatever happens.
But that is not what you said or want at all is it? Your plan (such as it is) so far, is... to (LOL) simply let the people using e85 not pay their state registration fee of $20-200 a year... that will not raise a billion dollars a day that you say we need to cover the increased cost of ethanol over gasoline. to make up the shortfall on what we produce.
I would rather let the market run it... I would rather explore for more oil and I sure wouldn't mind adding small amounts of alcohol to the gasoline as it becomes viable. viable meaning the market costs are sensible.
10% alcohol would probly be the smart way to get going.
so far... you have nothing. You have not had one suggestion that is workable.
Sooooo what do you suggest we do? your only suggestion so far is laughable... the registration one...
Ya got anything else?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It must be frustrating to be as consistantly wrong as you seem to be.
I don`t think he`s noticed. :)
-
LOL... simplistic diagrams.... that is what the alarmists have to show us?
angus... the warmer periods of history have been the best ones for life on this planet. the cold ones have been disaster.
retro... the site did not lie to you.. it was data that was a decade old but... even at that.. your data may be an overestimate. but say it is the worst case scenario... it would still mean that mans real contribution to greenhouse gas is a tiny little fraction of a percent and that in order for it to make any difference at all... that greenhouse gas would have to be the only driving force for global temperatures....
This would not explain of course why the entire universe heats and cools along with suns activities regardless of what type of atmosphere they have. It would not explain why a shift in the rotation of the planet happens to change the global climate.
lazs
-
We don't have a warm period, - it's just cosy. The warmer periods never supported intelligent life as well. The climate in the warmer period is thought to have been somewhat violent BTW.
The cold periods were rough, but yet intelligent life was starting to blossom in the last cold one.
And in cold periods, not all the globe was frozen over.
In an accelerated warm period as some are predicting (me not), you will have no life on the planet at all. If it is not just the sun, but a function of high emissions and low vegetation to add, it may however be a situation never occuring before. I'd rather not take the chances.
So naturally, I am all for the western world growing as much fuel as they can. It will balance emissions to some point, lengthen the period untill we run out of oil anyway, and make us less depended on....OPEC as well as Venezuela.....
As for Retro's explaining picture being simple, it still seems to be complicated enough for some on the forum....
-
LOL... even you admit that in cold periods starvation is a very real possibility.. and when it is warm that does not mean that everywhere is too hot. It just means a longer growing season in most of the cold areas.
The satalite data for the last two decades for instance shows no real increase in the temp for the US. I tend to think that the more accurate data it gathers is an indication that the rest of the data gathered may have some problems but... say your little part of the world got a little longer growing season... besides their not really being a damn thing we can do about it.... how bad a thing would that be?
we have had more co2 before and we have had more heat. Nothing to worry about except what some alarmist might come up with for a "cure".
lazs
-
The most vast dryland not being used to produce food at all, is...hot.
The main production of food comes from temperate climates.
With warming and caps melting you have some of the finest arable areas drowned, desert zones moving up, and the only exhange are naked rocky areas.
Any other wise thoughts?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Of course we are "contributing toward it"... we are contributing toward every single thing that happens just by being here.
The point is tho.. how much and what can we do about it... I say very little in both cases. I say that nature is such an overwhelming cause that anything we do about global climate won't change the way nature wants to go in any real measurable way.
angus's quote simply says that the scientists are caught off guard by nature once again... big surprise... they simply can't predict squat when it comes to any natural global climate. They don't understand fully how nature works much less how we affect it.. their models are pitiful childrens toys missing any signifcance in the real world.
lazs
People used to say the exact same thing about dumping trash in the oceans. That, was until, all the trash started washing back up. I'm not getting back into this BS debate on here again. Those of you that know me, know I'm a real scientist that deals with this information in real time. There is a serious lack of understanding on the basics of the issue bu the general public. I won't begin here, I got drawn into this debate before, and won't again. Laz, and others that continually hang onto their beliefs, please, please, go start reading and understand the basics of science before you start spouting your ideology. I understand yours... the Farmer's Almanac... was the beginning of scientific inquiry in this country, and revolves around observations of local influence. It most certainly did not predict the late arrival and severity of the past few winters, where in late December there were flowers blooming in Alaska and Siberia. Bears in higher latitudes never went into torpor last year. Things are changing, and SOLAR influence is not the mitigating factor.
The amount of solar change is integrated into calculations pertaining to climate change, and it doesn't add up. Even NASA Climate Studies, before they were ordered to stand down by the current administration ADMITTED this.
READ MORE THAN THE FARMER'S ALMANAC.
-
At last, something making sense.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
READ MORE THAN THE FARMER'S ALMANAC.
:aok :rofl
but unfortunately some just dont want to accept the truth.
the world is a flat, yes.
-
This WebSite (http://www.surfacestations.org/) details some of the problems associated with surface temperature observation stations.
See if you can help them out by doing a visual survey of a local weather station.
Terror
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
People used to say the exact same thing about dumping trash in the oceans. That, was until, all the trash started washing back up. I'm not getting back into this BS debate on here again. Those of you that know me, know I'm a real scientist that deals with this information in real time. There is a serious lack of understanding on the basics of the issue bu the general public. I won't begin here, I got drawn into this debate before, and won't again. Laz, and others that continually hang onto their beliefs, please, please, go start reading and understand the basics of science before you start spouting your ideology. I understand yours... the Farmer's Almanac... was the beginning of scientific inquiry in this country, and revolves around observations of local influence. It most certainly did not predict the late arrival and severity of the past few winters, where in late December there were flowers blooming in Alaska and Siberia. Bears in higher latitudes never went into torpor last year. Things are changing, and SOLAR influence is not the mitigating factor.
The amount of solar change is integrated into calculations pertaining to climate change, and it doesn't add up. Even NASA Climate Studies, before they were ordered to stand down by the current administration ADMITTED this.
READ MORE THAN THE FARMER'S ALMANAC.
You're not getting into this debate again huh? Are you not jumping right in with both feet? I guess we're just supposed to be quieted at your superior self proclaimed scientificness? Pardon me if I'm not impressed.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
You're not getting into this debate again huh? Are you not jumping right in with both feet? I guess we're just supposed to be quieted at your superior self proclaimed scientificness? Pardon me if I'm not impressed.
If he's jumping in with 2 feet, well a good thing ;)
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Easy enough to bypass the question.
Too scary?
Would you rephrase the question?
And as for many of Retro's suggestions, - quite workable, and definately tryable. Since some here seem to think nothing should be tried at all untill an equilibrum of free market and scarce oil brings us to a grinding energy crisis, I rather side with trying various alternatives. After all, most of the energy we use is wasted.
-
This guy is funnier than me (but I was first) so I thought you might like to read it... especially since if it is in a newspaper... it is gospel to you.
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/8921432.html
I am glad more people are starting to come right out and say it... even if it causes the "flagulants" to go into attack mode. Bet old Vin would get a kick out of this BB huh?
Bet he gets a few irate letters to the editor from the "man made c02 will end life as we know it" crowd.
lazs
-
angus.. read my new thread to beetle...er... retro.. Old Vin is talking about coal but the idea is the same.
If beets little 2nd grader diagram would save the planet from (LOL) the co2 menace... and make money for someone... we would/will be doing it.
lazs
-
thank you akiron...
yep.. he is getting into it again but only to say..."I am right and you are wrong and it is because I have secret truths that only someone in my super secret identity would know"
come off it. I work in the field of pollution and have for about 20 years of my life. I work with labs and know how data is manipulated... I know how government agencies that people would think are scientific (like the epa) are merely run by boards and cater to political and extremeist environmental groups who themselves... are nothing but a group of shark lawyers using the environment to win huge settlements. You would have to be a fool to not question the process.
read some of the links.. read the link to surface stations.. read the others... try to read things that don't preach to your choir. ask yourself why the data just doesn't add up.. why the satalite data doesn't agree with the surface stations... why it gets colder when the co2 doomsdayers say that it should only get hotter.
don't breath a sigh of relief when one BBC article by their "environmental editor" digs up a study that shows suns brightness (not activity) is down a bit (along with global temp oddly) and that "proves" that co2 is the only thing we should be looking at... the only profitable one that is... ain't no money in doing something about the sun...
lazs
-
angus... yes... but guess what... our desert areas aren't growing they are shrinking. we have less not more. and.... during every ice age...
The land that was under all those glaciers was just like what is under the current ones... useless and lifeless... for a time.
Nope... warm to hot is better than cold to freezing every time.
lazs
-
:lol Retro=PNG
-
Ok. Lazs, I think you need to look at the globe.
Warming=desert areas expanding around the middle.
Temperate areas retreating northwards as well as southwards.
Caps melting means raised sea levels. That means that actually some of the finest cropland in the world will be submerged.
Returned areas: Sea and barren land, as well as the N-Siberian swamps.
Guess you wanna there huh? Cos that's probably the only + return. Except from the emitting methane that makes our CO2 emission look puny.
BTW, reading the headlines today:
From WTO and confirmed by the IPCC, - Weather extremities are actually peaking. Average temps are higher for about 1.8 or so into 4+ degs Celcius, on areas as large as continents.
But that is, as I have pointed out, not as truly a mass as the Ice melting or the mass of oceans warming despite the cold ice finally mixing with it.
Second one was that apparently the Warming debate is not such a big debate as previously thought, since MOST scientists seem to agree upon it, as well as those who don't mostly seem to have a $$$ link to the biggest carbon-related companies.
Shocking, isn't it? And what a surprize....
-
Read that silly article. What team is afraid to face the enemy......?
-
and make money for someone
Life isn't all about money. And here's a question for you Lazs, would you drill for oil in Alaska and ruin what little wilderness we have left? Cause possible extinctions of animals, ruin the lives of the natives there? Destroy migratory patterns? The world doesn't belong to us to destroy.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
angus.. read my new thread to beetle...er... retro.. Old Vin is talking about coal but the idea is the same.
If beets little 2nd grader diagram would save the planet from (LOL) the co2 menace... and make money for someone... we would/will be doing it.
lazs
Would we?
There is big and fast bucks fighting against it. For now.
-
Which team has shown conclusive proof?
-
BTW, I looked into your other post, read and replied.
-
About what? Whether it's warming GLOBALLY perhaps?
At least one team has shown positive proof of being wrong again and again.
-
Yes, yes, it's established that it's getting warmer.
Yes, yes, it's established that humans add to the warmth.
But has it been clearly established that ...
You know what...I don't want to go down this path because I believe I know your response anyway.
With that...Good Day!
-
Originally posted by FBBone
:lol Retro=PNG
Like the bad case of fungus he is, he will be back.
-
yes they have angus..
That team has predicted the worst hurricane season that the world has ever known for 2006
That team has predicted the rise of the oceans at 30' in two decades.
that team has predicted that co2 leads global warming not lags it.
That team has said that the warming of the rest of the universe is just an odd coincidence.
That team has predicted 5 degrees of temperature rise by 2050.. then 4 degrees and then 3 degrees and now 1 degree in 100 years.
That team has been wrong every single time they make a solid prediction based on their computer models.
lazs
-
that really doesn't make any sense. even if we went to e85 they would still sell every drop of oil they produced.
lazs
-
so you are saying that we have fertile farm land that is turning into desert? We must be losing food production globally then right? But wait... food production is up.
Partly due to longer growing seasons and more (gasp) co2.
There is no doubt that climate changes occur.. that they happened before we were ever here.. that they happened when we were here and insignificant as co2 producers... that there has been more co2 before.
What there is doubt of tho is that our tiny little contribution (man made co2) to a tiny little portion of natural climate change (greenhouse gas) is what is driving it or... that we could slow it in any way if we produced 0% of the co2.
Again.. I ask... what would the climate be in 10 years if we all slit our throats this afternoon?
well.. the "scientists" will tell you that they are "uncertain". That they really don't know.
but lets say that we reduce it by 30%... the most opptomistic attainable figure I have ever been able to get anyone to admit to... even at that.. it would ruin economies and lower the standard of living of everyone on the planet causing millions to die most likely...
but say we did it to "save the planet" what would 30% of almost nothing be? What would the effect be?
well... it is "uncertain" likely nothing we could measure... even the wild eyed alarmists won't go there... they won't be trapped into any hard numbers on anything... they know anything they give as hard numbers.. they will have to explain when it just doesn't happen..
They have not been right yet.
Name one "prediction" in their 20 plus years of doom and gloom that has come to pass.. no fair on the "predictions" they made after the fact.
lazs
-
"These are jealous socialists who want America to be a lot more like Europe"
Well that line ought to catch attention of certain individuals. I'd say old Vin has a loose screw...
:rofl
-C+
-
charge... there is no doubt at all that the most vehement of the "man made global warming" zealots are on the left.
Angus... Here is a 60 second version of why I have so much trouble with the whole "end of the world by frying in our own co2" scenario.
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/the-60-second-c.html
You do have to admit that the hysteria of the left on this is offputting. They have been caught in too many blunders and outright lies on climate and changes in the last 30 or so years. changing from man made global ice age to man made global hell on earth... with strange predictions on hurricanes and such thrown in... faulty weather stations... feints like "suns brightness" and avoiding suns activity... etc etc etc.
they have been wrong every single time...
The rest of the site is 80 pages if you want to delve into the science but it pretty much says that you can't make the temperature go up much more than a couple of degrees no matter how much co2 you put into the air.. not in centuries worth of time.
lazs
-
But the sentence does not really make any sense. "America to be lot more like Europe"? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Its clearly there to catch certain attention.
-C+
-
Geee....there is so much you do not know, that I do not know where to start.
Okay, line by line.
"so you are saying that we have fertile farm land that is turning into desert? We must be losing food production globally then right? But wait... food production is up."
Established fact. Deserts of the world have untill now been advancing. Notably in N-Africa. FYI Africa is a lot bigger than the USA, and Sahara is not the only desert.
The land lost is the "edgeland". Much of it can easily be fertile farmland, as well as it is, after all, vegetated land.
Food production up? Globally?, don't know, but I guess it is up, notably in Asia. After all, the global population is growing. And BTW, you have 3 Indians or more for every citizen of the USA. They increase their population without building up to mass starvation. Is the USA food production up recently? Or the EU? doubt it.
And here:
"What there is doubt of tho is that our tiny little contribution (man made co2) to a tiny little portion of natural climate change (greenhouse gas) is what is driving it or... that we could slow it in any way if we produced 0% of the co2.
Again.. I ask... what would the climate be in 10 years if we all slit our throats this afternoon?"
It's not tiny, and is reaching and heading for nice numbers after the existance of intelligent minds. As for slitting throats, that's your sick definition as an absolute alternative to at least trying to do something.
Slit your throat if you like, and in 10 years the only question about smell is where you did it, temperature, soil and surroundings, and ....distance.
Oh, that is the proximity climate to a slit-throat Lazs BTW.
The whole climate would probably have less CO2.
Then on to doom and gloom and predictions and countermeasures, which you seem to hate so much.
You should look up the ozone layer, the chemistry, the countermeasures (which were of course severly opposed by people like you), and the effect, then the status today. Guess what. Scientists were right, and measures worked. But it will take a long time before it is allright, so a very nice high-five that the future generations (if they will be around) will give to the arsehats who fought against everything to be done, stone-by-stone, mile-by-mile. Nope. They are actually going to thank people from Retro's camp, not those who wanted a cheaper dumpside and renovation of Freon-12 and related equipment for short time profit.
Here:
"They have not been right yet.
Name one "prediction" in their 20 plus years of doom and gloom that has come to pass.. no fair on the "predictions" they made after the fact."
The predictions I heard from 25 years ago, that the globe was about to warm up, CO2 would be rising, and the polar caps would start melting?
The calculation debates about the soot-related global dimming effect, and both it's cooling effect and when it would wear out?
Ooooops. I named too many.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The rest of the site is 80 pages if you want to delve into the science but it pretty much says that you can't make the temperature go up much more than a couple of degrees no matter how much co2 you put into the air.. not in centuries worth of time.
lazs
I agree Laz that the argument of global warming and CO2 is pretty much lame. It's actually just a by-product of the larger issue - our mass overconsumption of materials. We have become a consumerist society where we measure material wealth to class. Make more money, make more products to sell, when we could be looking at how we make things so that we can re-integrate the raw materials back into society.
Remember that monitor and all the packaging? WTF is all that needed for? My iPod died after a year of use. Why couldn't it last 5 or 10 years? Why couldn't I take the battery out and fix it? Why does my cell phone only last 2 years before it starts to fail? How come I can't take my car into a dealer, remove my seats and upholstery and engine, and get an upgrade? Body is in fine shape. But no. Companies want me to by NEW products. We have become a disposable consumerist society.
We are producing garbage at an unsustainable rate. We are consuming raw materials with no consideration for its waste during manufacturing or its end-life recycling. Only a fraction of the products we make can be re-used. We think water is an endless supply. That is the issue.
Now tree-huggers want alternative fuel sources from things like corn. Ummm... DANGER WILL ROBINSON. DON'T TIE FOOD SOURCES INTO FUEL SOURCES. It will drive up the prices for wheat and other grains to make frackin fuel for my vehicle. That is the true danger - we're now letting oil and gas companies look at purchasing the worlds food supply to make gas for cars, suv's and trucks. Moving people should not be at the expense of the world's food plate.
Don't get me wrong. I love automobiles... the hummer is excessive, but frackin cool. I also like pickup trucks and I think Jeep rules! But only if you're using them for what their build for. Driving a big 4x4 that gets 15mpg to work everyday to your office job is not the smartest or economical reason. Mind you if you only have to fill the truck up once a month because you don't drive it to work and use it for hauling your camper, house reno's, moving stuff, frack yeah, get a F-350 5th wheel! But we need to start thinking about what impact we are having on the planet. C02 is just a weak bullshiet excuse for greenies to make their cause. Kind of like Greenpeace using Seals to fundraise against the Seal hunt (don't get me started). :)
anyways, stepping off my soap box.
-
This was enough to shake the article Lazs:
"Since 1940, Earth's surface temperatures have increased by about a half degree Celsius"
Latest updates of numbers...maybe it's just this year
"Samkvæmt tölunum var hitastig jarðar 1,89 gráðu yfir meðallagi í janúar og 1,37 gráðu í febrúar. Þá mældist hiti í Evrópu fjórum gráðum yfir meðaltali í apríl."
Global temps 1.89 over the jan temps average, and 1.37 in feb. European continent 4 degs in April.
(http://www.mbl.is)
If you are looking for something cooling to level this out, you should not look to the arctic areas. And after all, the mass of ice still tied up is more than the mass of the entire atmosphere....
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
Yes, yes, it's established that it's getting warmer.
Yes, yes, it's established that humans add to the warmth.
But has it been clearly established that ...
You know what...I don't want to go down this path because I believe I know your response anyway.
With that...Good Day!
Say it again please. Still being debated :D
Anyway Lazs, there is only one team. That is the team hired for propoganda by the Carbon emitting and money making industries have hired to counter what a spectrum of scientists from all sources and all corners of the world have been claiming for a couple of decades. Didn't all happen yesterdaym abd not all in the USA, who basically are no more than 5% of the people in the world. By headcount.
-
No offence Angus, since Meteorologists and scientists can't predict weather next week to within 80% accuracy, how in the frack can they predict climate change for the next century? Climate science is also so frackin complex, it is absolutely ridiculous to think they can tell me the worlds temperature is going up 1-2 Celsius the next few decades. It's also one of the newest science fields, even newer than nuclear science.
What we'll know about weather science will be completely different 10-20 years from now. We've also only been accurately tracking weather since the 70's with ACCURATE instruments based on an international standard. We also didn't even know about the jet stream until Carl-Gustaf Arvid Rossby discovered it for us back in 1939. It's a very new field with a lot of questions and complex variables that even scientists are only now starting to understand.
The problem in using CO2 as a global environmental issue is a frack weak excuse. The fact I can point out some pretty glaring holes from a simple explanation should be highlighting that if the greenies want us to look at excessive consumerism or recycling, or waste/air management, then do so. But use CO2? Might as well be trying to sell me on a fact about a Nigerian with money locked up in an account.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Say it again please. Still being debated :D
That is the team hired for propoganda by the Carbon emitting and money making industries have hired to counter what a spectrum of scientists from all sources and all corners of the world have been claiming for a couple of decades. Didn't all happen yesterdaym abd not all in the USA, who basically are no more than 5% of the people in the world. By headcount.
:noid :noid
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Angus
Say it again please. Still being debated :D
Anyway Lazs, there is only one team. That is the team hired for propoganda by the Carbon emitting and money making industries have hired to counter what a spectrum of scientists from all sources and all corners of the world have been claiming for a couple of decades. Didn't all happen yesterdaym abd not all in the USA, who basically are no more than 5% of the people in the world. By headcount.
Yes those noble environmental scientists work for handouts and would never think of taking money from people who have a vested interest in this. Like Gore. No they are noble kind people like hobbits, but without the hairy toes.
-
Okay:
"No offence Angus, since Meteorologists and scientists can't predict weather next week to within 80% accuracy, how in the frack can they predict climate change for the next century?"
Close weather...is tough. And in that ballpark, 80% is almost witchcraft. When it comes to seasons it gets better, - or how the frack do you think anyone can foreasy a colder season in NY in January trather than July, if he can't tell the weather next week?
As for 1-2 degrees, - that's pretty much actually. On a world scale might I add.
Then on to weather tracking and modern science. Ahem, weather tracking on several spots on the world, as well as reports of the navies of the world in various places at sea, - those go back a few hundred years. The puzzle of navy reports (notably British) are being put together with modern science, but if you claim that ACCURATE measures have only existed since the 70's, you would be referring to the 1870's, minus some years.
SATTELLITE MEASURES around the globe measuring thermal issues are of course more fitting there. They have actually reveiled shocking issues such as the cooling effect of vegetated land....that's that.
Then the Jet wind. Effect on weather systems please?
Finally CO2.
I think it is overrated. In the sense that you can tell a fact, you don't have to shout it. But that's however just what you need for thick skulls.
-
You forget one important thing.
Handouts for the hobbits could come from anyone. Including oil power.
:noid
-
From junkscience.com (http://junkscience.com):
If you think it's a no-brainer that humans are causing catastrophic global warming, here's your opportunity to earn an easy US $100,000!
Contest rules here: ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com (http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/)
I sent 'em an e-mail telling them it must be true because some guys in the O'Club forum of the Aces High BBS said so. Haven't heard back yet..........
-
Originally posted by KONG1
From junkscience.com (http://junkscience.com):
Contest rules here: ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com (http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/)
I sent 'em an e-mail telling them it must be true because some guys in the O'Club forum of the Aces High BBS said so. Haven't heard back yet..........
Thats a bet they will never have to pay out on lol.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
You're not getting into this debate again huh? Are you not jumping right in with both feet? I guess we're just supposed to be quieted at your superior self proclaimed scientificness? Pardon me if I'm not impressed.
I'm not asking you to be quieted at all... just the opposite. Learn the science and THEN speak your mind. And I'm not jumping in with both feet. I merely dabbled a toe.... until we speak in the same language, and not the same ideology, then we can debate all you want. It's not a debate when you have already determined you are right. I'm simply stating known facts and drawing conclusions from them. You may be right, there may be absolutely nothing to worry about, and I'd love the empirical data to be something else entirely... it's just not stacking up that way no matter how you slant it.
The empirical data does not support your ideology.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
I'm not asking you to be quieted at all... just the opposite. Learn the science and THEN speak your mind. And I'm not jumping in with both feet. I merely dabbled a toe.... until we speak in the same language, and not the same ideology, then we can debate all you want. It's not a debate when you have already determined you are right. I'm simply stating known facts and drawing conclusions from them. You may be right, there may be absolutely nothing to worry about, and I'd love the empirical data to be something else entirely... it's just not stacking up that way no matter how you slant it.
The empirical data does not support your ideology.
My ideology in this regard is simply to resist those who have a hidden but nonetheless obvious agenda and those who fall for this fear mongering hook line and sinker.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
My ideology in this regard is simply to resist those who have a hidden but nonetheless obvious agenda and those who fall for this fear mongering hook line and sinker.
That's good idea...resist an agenda.... If we had more people like you, a friend of mine might have his legs, which he left in Fallujah. Oh, but I guess you fell for that "agenda" of fear mongering...HOOK, LINE AND SINKER.
People keep saying this agenda of Climate Change...what agenda? I missed the memo on it, I must be out of the loop. Somehow my data backs it up.. the agenda... are MY eyeballs and brain being controlled by the agenda???I'm sooooo confused. As one of those "scientists", maybe i might be let in on this agenda, so I don't have to spend any more time with our mongoloid, critically thoughtless college students.
Whatever.... I don't have kids, yet, but if I did, they're the ones who will inherit the world you leave them, bereft of it's former wonders. This species is undeniably the most idiosyncratic nature has ever come up with. Nothing else strives to destroy more of it's habitat, or itself, more than ours. Then people like yourself sit back and try to make it seem logical.
Seriously.... think about it. A 24,000 mile diameter ball of rock, covered by an atmosphere, which we'll give it a generous depth of 120,000 feet. (roughly 23 miles) Is it so hard to think that almost 7 billion people can create issues in an atmosphere that is exactly .0000958 the contents of said planet Earth. That is all the atmosphere takes up. Why is that so hard for people to wrap their little brains around? The atmosphere is paper thin... change doesn't take alll that much...especially if you figure 23 miles is all that separates you from space. Any minor change in he consistency of the atmosphere has implications.
It is a sad world when those that do good are met with suspicion, and to those that do nothing but harm, you then give over your constitutional rights.
-
Paper thin. Yep, and has less total mass than the polar caps.
-
Oh, btw, there are so many threads on these topics, and they cover so many angles. I'll start one on alternative fuels and sources of energy.
Brave new world.
-
angus... you didn't answer the question. what would happen in ten years to the global temperature if we were all dead. what would happen to it if we reduced our portion of co2 by 30%... How bout some hard numbers?
As for the deserts.. we have to protect em here.. they are retreating. deserts are like the northern ice pack... they retreat and advance all the time in africa. Truth is tho...food production is up.
As for the predictions... the predictions from the majority of scientists 30 years ago was that we would be in an ice age by now caused by us.. they changed it when even a fool could see that we were in a warming cycle. they are good at predicting what has already happened.
The ozone layer? guess what.. the holes have moved around just as they did... there was a lot of hysteria at the time too... just like now... Lots of exaggeration... I knew that but seen no real harm in getting rid of CFC's.. they are evil in any case. and... it didn't bankrupt countries doing it... No big deal. I don't know and no one knows if we had much to do with the ozone changes. They sure seem eager to take credit for it tho.
Clean air.. clean water... good things.. we have more of both now than 50 years ago.
moray says that we all thought it was perfectly fine to dump anything we wanted into the ocean.
This is BS of course. At one point in mans history.. it most certainly was.. our contribution was tiny no matter what. it got oxidized and washed up and well.. just wasn't a problem. Modern man has known tho that polluting the ocean was a problem... too many of us with too much dumping.
I worked in the wastewater field in the early 70's in the bay area and I can assure you that we had been "caring" about dumping into the ocean for many years... I spent time in a boston whaler taking samples of the ocean and filing out chain of custodies and sending reports to the state. We were not allowed to just dump stuff into the ocean.
But co2? that is thin... co2 is a benificial part of our atmosphere... at levels far greater than we can ever achieve... reducing it, or our contribution to it, 30%.... does nothing. If the whole global warming thing is based on co2 then you got nothing.
And what will we do when we go into a global cooling trend? How much co2 will we have to spew out to gain back even 1 degree according to the flawed models?
lazs
-
Good idea.
I am awaiting the arrival of the truck load of hip waders i bought wholesale. I will then commence volume sales on eBay. By the looks of things here the market is about to boom. The BS is getting too deep to wade in without them.
The market will be manipulated and people will fall into....just like they have done here. :)
I predict.........now , if .........uhhhhhh......possibl y...........well..wait....... ..according to. No uhhhhhhhhh.....I`ll get back to you. :)
-
Yep.. you need to read this angus... it shows just how dishonest the alarmist can be in order to achieve their agenda of panic and get their 15 minutes of fame and of course.. grants.
http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.html
The patent and flagrant ignoring and discrediting of real evidence should be enough for you to at least question motive?
lazs
-
but... back on topic... it really is the sun... if we cut back the 30% of our co2 contribution that these guys say is the max we could do.. and even then.. we would be hurting... millions would sink into devestating poverty with mass starvation... we would accomplish little or nothing. negligible.
http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.html
The reason there is a contest that awards $100,000 to anyone who can prove man is the cause of global warming with co2 is because... it is simply not possible... at some point the co2 has that is added adds no more greenhouse effect. That point may be 1 or at best 2 degrees. that is with their estimates... the alarmists... not mine. they admit that when pressed.
So.. the contest simply makes em put up the science... there is no science.. there is speculation but no hard numbers.. they have been burned on the numbers too many times so now... it is "significant" and "almost certain" make em put up...
angus.. it must make you uncomfortable when you research this and find so little real hard predictions and numbers. and.. that the recent predictions of even a year ago are now being revised to less dramatic ones. It doesn't bother you that they are making no predictions?
The deniers the blashemers are.. and they are not being proved wrong.
lazs
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Yes those noble environmental scientists work for handouts and would never think of taking money from people who have a vested interest in this. Like Gore. No they are noble kind people like hobbits, but without the hairy toes.
Exactly. I always nearly spew the monitor when one of the "The sky if falling for lunch bunch" spouts off about oil companies , then can`t see through the thin veil that is being held over their own heads about global warm...errr.... climate change.
Retro PNGed? Who would have thunk it? :rofl :aok
-
Yep. All in the name of "For the good of the planet". Horse manure!
For the good of the pocket book would be more like it.
-
angus.. you need to read the site. the more you delve into this global climate thing the more you see how little we know.. including even... our ability to measure temperature for the globe... yep.. we are not even sure what the average is.
The stations have been proven to be bogus... satalite data shows that north America has not even warmed in almost two decades.
The quote you give is one that is a "for instance" it takes the very worst case scenario that is predicted by the most wild eyed of the alarmists and says.. "ok.. lets say they are right on this" and goes from there.
Fact is... natural or man made.. we simply can't increase the temp over a degree or two with the greenhouse effect of co2 alone. even that would take about 100 years. and.. it would mean that no other natural factor could occur... no normal cooling cycle... it would mean that everyone would still be driving 1999 chevies 100 years from now. It is bogus.. even you must be losing faith.
mister fork... I agree we have too much waste. I hate the packaging. I have never owned a new car. How much do I save compared to the hollier than tho set by never buying new cars? I have a kirby vac that will outlast 20 of the plastic ones they use... I remodel my home.... I reload ammo... I fix stuff others throw away... hell... even my omega watch will probly get passed on to my son while they throw away 20 plastic ones. I have guns that are 100 years old. refinished a couple of benches for my and my girlfriends porches instead of letting then get thrown away... they are better made and look better than the new ones you can buy.
But... I am not gonna tell them how to live. when plastic gets more expensive.. we will use less for worthless things like packaging.
lazs
-
If Gore is so confident of his position, why are his only media appearances in front of sycophants like NPR?
Best-selling author Dennis
Avery is the next prominent figure to challenge the facts Al Gore is
promoting in his global warming crusade. Mr. Avery is co-author of
Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years. Both Al Gore and Dennis Avery have New York Times best-selling books on global warming, but with opposite conclusions.
The list of Al Gore detractors continues to grow as his extreme
rhetoric and conclusions get dissected by scientists, economists, and
researchers. Avery joins Lord Christopher Monckton (former Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher advisor), Bjorn Lomborg (Danish economist), author
Michael Crichton, Prof. S. Fred Singer (former director of the U.S.
National Weather Service), Tim Ball, Ph.D. (historical climatologist),
Prof. Ian Clark (University of Ottawa), and Prof. Richard Lindzen (MIT)
among others.
Gore claims recent climate change is the result of human activities,
and society must give up most of its energy supply to prevent global
catastrophe. Conversely, Avery amassed physical evidence of past
warming/cooling cycles and experimental evidence demonstrating variations
in solar activity affect Earth's constantly varying temperatures.
"My book says our warming is natural, unstoppable-and not very
dangerous anyway," stated Avery.
"These books represent the two leading explanations for the Earth's
recent temperature changes-and they conflict. If global warming truly is
the most important public policy issue of our day, then it is high time the
public got to hear the arguments from both sides matched up against each
other," continued Avery.
Gore has refused all debate challengers to date. Joseph Bast, president
of The Heartland Institute, noted, "Maybe it's because climate alarmists
tend to lose when they debate climate realists. Or because most scientists
do not support climate alarmism." The Heartland Institute has run more than
$500,000 of ads in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington
Times promoting a debate.
link (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-06-2007/0004639709&EDATE=)
-
yep...all you got to do is say "retro (or insert new handle here), I have never heard of you so you didn't "tell me so" in the past"
He will then start quoting beetle and give himself up... his ego won't let him not do it.
as for the "scientists" that believe in man made global warming and are altruistic?
No such thing.. they are jumping on the bandwagon and going after those grants... publish or die is still very much alive in their community and if you can "prove" man made global warming or prove some disaster that warming the planet may cause... you get published. they are every bit as ignoble as any scientist on the oil company payroll. they are not better or worse. I don't trust any of em.
I look at what they say.. I look at what they say that is discredited or does or doesn't happen.. and I look at how evasive they are. Why be evasive if you are as certain as you claim?
Why not publish some simple guide like the doubters do... something with real science that proves their point that man made co2 (LOL) is causing the planet to heat up more than a degree or so (all else being equal) in 100 years? co2 just can't make things much warmer no matter how much is in the air. A doubling of it (by the worst case scenario) might add a degree.. a further doubling... maybe half a degree... after that.. nothing... no further doubling will increase the greenhouse effect.
lazs
-
sounds like someone has taken the day off to do some fishin'.
-
this is the first time i've read Vin Suprynowicz. this guy is a real gem....
i can perfectly visualize that ululating, self-flagellating, technologically Kervorkian chorus collectively gnashing it's teeth about CO2... very very good stuff, Suprynowicz is now on my morning reading list of columnists. :aok
-
Global warming crusade, - what a nice term. What does it mean? Does it refer to the occuring global warming, or does it refer to the peope related effect on the atmosphere.
Does it tag the brave crowd of folks that rather prefer the globe not to boil up ike Venus in a matter of some generations? A crusade to save your grandchildren? A confontation that so many faced, for their existance? Like the British being the only ones to stick to having a war with Nazi power.
Futile perhaps. Futile to try to fight against human stupitity?
-
I'll answer this one quickly.
"angus.. you need to read the site. the more you delve into this global climate thing the more you see how little we know.. including even... our ability to measure temperature for the globe... yep.. we are not even sure what the average is.
The stations have been proven to be bogus... satalite data shows that north America has not even warmed in almost two decades. "
Bear in mind, that just the sheer mass of the arctics and glaciers is more than the sheer mass of the whole paper-thick atmosphere.
Then bear in mind that getting good figures about temperature are much easier in a mass of water, than in a mass of air.
Bear in mind that no matter how little "we", or rather "you" know, the global temps and their effect in air, water, and ice, all point the same way.
Bear in mind, that living near to arctic borders, you don't even have to know a termometer to see what is happening.
So, maybe I have to bear in mind that you don't know squat about what you are talking about....errrr...cutting and pasting?
-
p.s. bear in mind that just the air temps in N-America, are just the air temps over that area. The area of fast warming old USSR is much bigger for instance.
And Europe, with 4 degs up will eat 1 deg down in N-America.
This is GLOBAL.
-
angus... again... you aren't reading the site. It is complex and long but very informative. We can't really get good "average" temps like you talk about... A 4 degree increase in one area does not really mean you average that out with a 4 degree lowering in another... size of area is not even everything. it is very complex and any honest scientist will tell you that it is only an estimate.
As for you not needing a thermometer... you are falling into the trap you claim the "deniers" are falling into... that of local conditions being the rule... why are you allowed to do that?
Here I am having a very mild summer... the winter was also better than normal. So I got... a less hot summer and a less cold (milder) winter.. seems great for me.
My only consolation is that there is nothing anyone can do about it so I will enjoy it as it comes. I don't have to worry about nature and the weather...
The old adage that you can't do anything about the weather is just as true now as it ever was.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
Does it tag the brave crowd of folks that rather prefer the globe not to boil up ike Venus in a matter of some generations?
Wow, with that kind of sensationalism, you sound just like all the other alarmists.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
but... back on topic... it really is the sun... if we cut back the 30% of our co2 contribution that these guys say is the max we could do.. and even then.. we would be hurting... millions would sink into devestating poverty with mass starvation... we would accomplish little or nothing. negligible.
http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.html
The reason there is a contest that awards $100,000 to anyone who can prove man is the cause of global warming with co2 is because... it is simply not possible... at some point the co2 has that is added adds no more greenhouse effect. That point may be 1 or at best 2 degrees. that is with their estimates... the alarmists... not mine. they admit that when pressed.
So.. the contest simply makes em put up the science... there is no science.. there is speculation but no hard numbers.. they have been burned on the numbers too many times so now... it is "significant" and "almost certain" make em put up...
angus.. it must make you uncomfortable when you research this and find so little real hard predictions and numbers. and.. that the recent predictions of even a year ago are now being revised to less dramatic ones. It doesn't bother you that they are making no predictions?
The deniers the blashemers are.. and they are not being proved wrong.
lazs
The fact you even put up a website called "junk science" as a reference... Do you even read what you type, or does it just spew un-abated from your mouth like diarrhea? It is an inspiration to lunacy, your posts.
We didn't pollute...we stopped polluting? Even now, with our almost stringent wastewater management, you still have an "acceptable" amount of fecal colliform being released. Let's not even talk of physical garbage... you're living in denial, I'll send you pictures of atolls in the pacific that are strewn with trash. Your hero, Mr. Bush, has even rolled back pollution controls in an effort to better the economy! Cleanest water, you said? Top predators such as tuna, swordfish, and mackerel are ALL showing higher and higher bottom up (meaning they aquire it from what they eat) pollutants such as mercury and lead every time they are comparatively analized.... Laz, you simply don't know what you are talking about and your scope of knowledge is undeniably limited.
EPA control has actually DECREASED in the past decade under bush's direction. He's even told NASA's "Climate Studies" Program to cease collecting data on climate. Talk about an agenda.
-
"angus... you didn't answer the question. what would happen in ten years to the global temperature if we were all dead. what would happen to it if we reduced our portion of co2 by 30%... How bout some hard numbers?"
Dead like by a neutron bomb?
Let's see. In just 10 years not much. CO2 would fall slightly. The warming would seize to increase perhaps, but would yet be continuing. Polar area meltings continue. Vegetation would change drastically in agricultural areas, depending on what happens to the lifestock though. That is a huge question. So, assuming a big drop in lifestock, areas will go from field to scrub. In just 10 years the difference would be notable.
Now pollution would drop, that affects the dimming effect, which is a plus for warming. So it's a matter of balance before co2 and others start dropping.
So in short, in 10 years, not much. Will probably be even warmer.
BTW, I have read an article about something very similar. Stepping from 100 years to 100.000 years.
Now I have a question for you.
What do you think will happen to the big oil companies, if alternative fuels start advancing, say 5% of the cake every year? In, say, 10 years?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Global warming crusade, - what a nice term. What does it mean?
Sheesh Angus.........the grants haven`t even been handed out to the scientists to study this yet.
Give them time. Say..........ten to fifteen years. A few added grant extensions, etc. There are charts to make for Christ`s sake. :)
Don`t worry , you will get your share of the bill.
-
Steven Milloy, publisher of junkscience.com also dismissed the EPA's 1993 report linking secondhand smoke to cancer as "a joke," and when the British Medical Journal published its own study with similar results in 1997, he scoffed that "it remains a joke today." After one researcher published a study linking secondhand smoke to cancer, Milloy wrote that she "must have pictures of journal editors in compromising positions with farm animals. How else can you explain her studies seeing the light of day?"
Same tactics, different "debate."
-
A scientist doesn't have to have an agenda to get a grant.
However a "scientist" working to promote a certain thesis for an Oil Tycoon MUST have a certain agenda.
That's the difference.
-
Wasn't Lazs quite hot in the tobacco thread?
Hot like in smoking :t
-
Three active threads on the same topic merged into one.
-
it's majic!!!
:O
:D
-
moray.. despite your indignation..... "junkscience" is called that because it debunks a lot of the junk science out there including the co2 boogey man.
I understand your anger and crusade against pollution. pollution is bad... OK? we have all sorts of pollution tho.. we have wasteful stuff and stuff that can't really be helped and pollution that really doesn't amount to much in the grand scheme..
People pollute... can't be helped.. animals pollute and mother nature herself is the biggest polluter... wiping out thousands of species in one angry stroke at times.
So stay on topic. I am a land discharger... most of the "fecal coliform" that you are so upset about it from animals other than man when I run my test wells. Filthy beasts!!!!
lazs
-
Now... second hand smoke... anyone who believes that second hand smoke kills 5,000 children a day and that it is ten more toxic than first hand smoke should indeed be a target for "junkscience"
smoking is bad for you. second hand smoke is not worse for you than smoking. It is not worse for someone to be in the same room as a smoker than it is for the smoker.
I smoked for many years. I 15 years ago. I never want to go back but all the hysteria about second hand smoke was way over the top. It is indeed like the global warming hysteria in that the "scientists" vie over who can make the most alarming prediction.
There are about 108 computer models for global climate change that are recognized. The estimates temp change from man made greenhouse gases range from .22 degrees to 6 degrees in 100 years. They all use different parameters.. yep... not one has the same planet modeled. the highest ones have a planet with no cloud cover... they model a planet that has no clouds... our planet has 40% clouds.
just like second hand smoke being more harmful than first hand... the co2 numbers don't add up.
lazs
-
and moray.. you need to ask some questions when someone tells you there is fecal coliform in water.. any water.. Tracer studies have become quite sophisticated... human waste has trace elements (ppb) of all sorts of things not occuring in nature like pharmicudicals and grooming products.
The EPA needs to be gutted.. they are constantly using junkscience to make things worse. Telling agencies that what was once an ocean bed needs to not have any salt in the water for instance... billions wasted on uneeded and treatment that uses millions of killowatts of power and fuel and uses millions of tons of chemicals.
The EPA has even caused deaths with its recomendations a few years back to stop chlorinating.. and it's wieght in the DDT ban and malaria outbreaks because of it.
The EPA is an agency that cowers in front of powerful environmental groups who are mostly comprised of lawyers looking for cities and agencies to sue. The EPA will not listen to real science over these lawyers.. it costs all of us.
They do some good work but they are being run now by the groups that have an agenda. That agenda is to liberate each and every one of us from as much of our cash as possible.
Like I said... pollution is bad.. it is natural tho for the most part and maybe it is needed... part of evolution or intelligent design or whatever... species have been dieing out before we ever showed up. Is putting out a forest fire a good thing or a bad thing for instance?
Is the waste from a volcanic eruption a good thing or a bad thing?
Is the oil bubbling up from the ocean floor a good thing or a bad thing?
Is it really pollution? Is fecal coliform pollution?
lazs
-
Second hand smoke = smoke.
The naughty part of it is that the smoker is polluting the victim, which in many cases cannot get away.
Same goes with GLOBAL things on much larger scales. It's not a private matter any more.
-
Originally posted by JB88
it's majic!!!
:O
:D
It is?
-
And since the merging of the threads (good idea) confuses one a tad in the beginning....Lazs:
Originally posted by Angus
"angus... you didn't answer the question. what would happen in ten years to the global temperature if we were all dead. what would happen to it if we reduced our portion of co2 by 30%... How bout some hard numbers?"
Dead like by a neutron bomb?
Let's see. In just 10 years not much. CO2 would fall slightly. The warming would seize to increase perhaps, but would yet be continuing. Polar area meltings continue. Vegetation would change drastically in agricultural areas, depending on what happens to the lifestock though. That is a huge question. So, assuming a big drop in lifestock, areas will go from field to scrub. In just 10 years the difference would be notable.
Now pollution would drop, that affects the dimming effect, which is a plus for warming. So it's a matter of balance before co2 and others start dropping.
So in short, in 10 years, not much. Will probably be even warmer.
BTW, I have read an article about something very similar. Stepping from 100 years to 100.000 years.
Now I have a question for you.
What do you think will happen to the big oil companies, if alternative fuels start advancing, say 5% of the cake every year? In, say, 10 years?
-
You might be really surprised at what these "Oil Companies" own and hold partnerships with.
It`s a no-brainer anyway. Oil will not be abandoned for a long, long time.
-
angus.. you have no numbers for your prediction. and for good reason. even a draconian and harmful to people reduction of 30% of mans contribution to co2 would do nothing. It would make no difference.
If... even by the most dire of alarmist predictions.. we will see an increase of 6 degrees in the global temp over the next 100 years and 3-4% of that increase is because of co2... and... 25% of the 3-4% of that is man made c02... say, to be generous... we are responsible for .01-.05 of a degree... what will a 30% "reduction" of that look like?
is there any way anyone could measure such a tiny thing on a global scale? forget that the margin of error for current measurments of global temperature average is in the range of 5% plus or minus.
and this is given the huge leap that all of the increase in temp is from man made co2.. even the most fervent of the global alarmists will admit that the sun is at the very least...25% of the increase or decrease in global temp... I believe it to be more like half.
I know "ITS THE SUN STUPID" is simplistic.. but for a reason.. it has to burn through the global warming hysteria... it is not just the sun... it is shifts in rotation tectonic shifts axis changes cloud cover changes... all sorts of things but co2.. is not a major player.. haven't you noticed the lack of hard evidence? the backing off on predictions?
you need to read more than wikipedia.
You need to ask why algore won't debate... why no one has won the 100,000 by proving co2 is the main reason for climate change... you need to ask yourself why there is no debate.. why it is not allowed. why the british "scientific" community is so frieghtened of any debate that they want anyone not agreeing with them to lose their accreditation.
in the end... I don't really care for me... I will live away from you lunatics and your silly laws and socialist BS will mean little.. the solution to people is to get away from em. but... my grandkids will have to live in a world that the socialists and junk science a holes make. I just don't want some of the most outlandish stuff they come up with to go unchallenged.
You claim the ones on the man made global warming bandwagon are the brave ones... that is laughable. A brave scientist doesn't tweak computer models until he gets a result that his peers and the guys handing out fame and fortune like.
lazs
-
Summary of global warming/climate change: If you are a liberal, Man (i.e. the USA) is ruining the world, it is the gospel, and dare not be questioned. If you are a conservative, you are skeptical (mostly because of the afore-mentioned part) The one unassailable fact is that the earth's temp has gone up 3/4 of ONE degree in the past century, and has been on an upward trend since 1979. Is that significant? Nary a clue.
-
Heard about this today, hadn't considered this:
But the stations play an important role in detecting and analyzing regional climate change. More ominously, they provide the official baseline historical temperature data that politically motivated global-warming alarmists like James Hansen of NASA plug into their computer climate models to predict various apocalypses.
NOAA says it uses these 1,221 weather stations — which like the ones in Uniontown and New Castle are overseen by local National Weather Service offices and usually tended to by volunteers — because they have been providing reliable temperature data since at least 1900.
But Anthony Watts of Chico, Calif., suspects NOAA temperature readings are not all they’re cracked up to be. As the former TV meteorologist explains on his sophisticated, newly hatched Web site http://http:/www.surfacestations.org, he has set out to do what big-time armchair-climate modelers like Hansen and no one else has ever done - physically quality-check each weather station to see if it’s being operated properly.
To assure accuracy, stations (essentially older thermometers in little four-legged wooden sheds or digital thermometers mounted on poles) should be 100 feet from buildings, not placed on hot concrete, etc. But as photos on Watts’ site show, the station in Forest Grove, Ore., stands 10 feet from an air-conditioning exhaust vent. In Roseburg, Ore., it’s on a rooftop near an AC unit. In Tahoe, Calif., it’s next to a drum where trash is burned.
Watts, who says he’s a man of facts and science, isn’t jumping to any rash conclusions based on the 40-some weather stations his volunteers have checked so far. But he said Tuesday that what he’s finding raises doubts about NOAA’s past and current temperature reports.
“I believe we will be able to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment.”
Meanwhile, you probably missed the latest about 2006. As NOAA reported on May 1 - with minimum mainstream-media fanfare - 2006 actually was the second- warmest year ever recorded in America, not the first. At an annual average of 54.9 degrees F, it was a whopping 0.08 degrees cooler than 1998, still the hottest year.
NOAA explained that it had updated its 2006 report “to reflect revised statistics” and “better address uncertainties in the instrumental record.” This tinkering is standard procedure. NOAA always scientifically tweaks temperature readings for various reasons — weather stations are moved to different locations, modernized, affected by increased urbanization, etc.
NOAA didn’t say whether it had adjusted for uncertainties caused by nearby burn barrels.
link (http://hecubus.wordpress.com/2007/06/18/could-this-be-the-deathnell-for-man-made-global-warming-alarmism/)
link (http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm)
-
even so.. you must realize that any measurement of global average temperature has an error factor of half a degree or so.
but.... I am really tired of people saying that all the scientists agree on co2 made global warming.. it is not in the least true... I do not need moray to tell me that I am a peasant with no inside info like a real "scientist' such as himself.. he shows no data... only hysteria... He is not a climate scientist at all.. but.. he has a degree so.. he is to be believed right?
If that is so.. what do we do about the 19,000 people with advanced degrees (so far) that have signed this petition?
Petition Project
Global Warming Petition
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
Please sign here _____________________________ _________
My academic degree is B.S. ___ M.S. ___ Ph.D. ___
in the field of _____________________________ __________
Please enter your name and address here:
_____________________________ __________________________
Name
_____________________________ __________________________
Street
_____________________________ __________________________
City, State, and Zip
I can't imagine that I am not in at least some good company when I say exactly what this petition says and then 19,000 "scientists" sign it.
Are they all the tools of big oil? Perhaps their degrees are not as important as the couple of thousand that the UN is able to scrape up or the 8 or 9 hundred algore digs up?
So it is not just some hot rodder "anti environmentalist" that is telling you this... 19,000 scientists with advanced degrees agree with me.
lazs
-
One thing that strikes me is that scientists on the 'non-man-made-warming' side of the fence are immediately dismissed as Exxon shills. (whether their salaries are paid by Exxon or not)-- NO one with big pockets finances research that would serve to contradict the prevailing academia/leftist wisdom that global-warming is FACT, so if it is to happen, someone like Exxon has to do it--And instead of having to debate said scientists on the merits of their data, the LEft simply dismisses them as shills/hacks. Look what happened to that poor sob at NASA who merely opined that perhaps the current conditions were natural
The head of NASA -- the National Aeronautical and Space Association--is "an idiot" and "in denial." He is also "surprisingly naive" and "a fool." With his judgment and competence so lacking, demands abound for his resignation as head of the largest and most accomplished science agency in the world.
Those comments and others in the past week have come from scientists shocked to learn that NASA chief Michael Griffin thinks differently than they about global warming. Among the most shocked is one of Dr. Griffin's own employees, James Hansen, a top climate scientist who "almost fell off my chair" when he learned that his research hadn't convinced his boss. "It's an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement," he told ABC News, referring to an interview of Dr. Griffin on National Public Radio. "It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change."
Some might think Dr. Griffin is entitled to think for himself. Apart from his PhD in aerospace engineering, he holds five masters degrees, he is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and the International Academy of Astronautics, he manages a US$1.1-billion climate-research budget and was unanimously confirmed to head NASA by the United States Senate.
But no. He is either "totally clueless" or "a deep anti-global warming ideologue," concludes Jerry Mahlman, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in a statement similar to many.
Dr. Griffin's radio interview drew this storm of controversy after he was asked about the seriousness of global warming. He replied by saying, ""First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings, where and when, are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now, is the best climate for all other human beings. I'm, I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."
link (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=2271ac23-6895-4789-9da0-6b28968b8d15)
it gets worse
Dr. Griffin's interview was prompted by criticisms from environmental journalist Greg Easterbrook, who charged that Dr. Griffin is wasting NASA's time and money on misguided space exploration projects, such as a manned mission to Mars and the establishment of a permanent base on the moon. Instead, Easterbrook argued, Dr. Griffin should be exercising his right to free speech, coming out against misguided NASA policies and spending more on legitimate priorities, such as greater global-warming research.
he Easterbrook charge led National Public Radio to ask Dr. Griffin why he wasn't "battling [global warming] as an army might battle an enemy." Dr. Griffin's response: "Nowhere in NASA's authorization, which of course governs what we do, is there anything at all telling us that we should take actions to effect climate change in either -- in one way or another.... NASA is not an agency chartered to, quote, 'battle climate change.' "
More howls from critics, who believe Dr. Griffin should be using his discretion to skew NASA's mission away from its core purpose -- and away from his fiduciary responsibilities to his organization -- and toward the service of fighting climate change.
To which Dr. Griffin responds, not unreasonably, "The question is, in a democratic society, who gets to choose. Unfortunately for Greg, it's not him."
Unfortunately for society, Greg Easterbrook happened to be wrong in another claim: that Dr. Griffin hadn't lost his right to speak out. For all intents and purposes, he has. Within days of the uproar, Dr. Griffin decided that he should not have discussed "an issue which has become far more political than technical." In an apology to his staff, he said, "I feel badly that I caused this amount of controversy over something like this," adding that, "it would have been well for me to have stayed out of it."
Dr. Griffin is now one more scientist who will not dispute the existence of a "scientific consensus on global warming."
-
Originally posted by lazs2
even so.. you must realize that any measurement of global average temperature has an error factor of half a degree or so.
but.... I am really tired of people saying that all the scientists agree on co2 made global warming.. it is not in the least true... I do not need moray to tell me that I am a peasant with no inside info like a real "scientist' such as himself.. he shows no data... only hysteria... He is not a climate scientist at all.. but.. he has a degree so.. he is to be believed right?
If that is so.. what do we do about the 19,000 people with advanced degrees (so far) that have signed this petition?
lazs
All scientist will never agree on anything, I've stated this prior. I am not "posting" pages of data, sir, on a bbs. I am not advocating any sort of hysteria, sir. I simply do not subscribe to an overly simplistic view, which you espouse, and mock my colleagues with.. (it's the sun stupid.) It's not the sun, stupid...that has been soundly defeated with real science.
Of course, should the world be warming, there will be certain organisms which will benefit. Alot will not.
Second, I'm not crazy about fecal colliform, I simply used it as an example. It is far from the worst thing we put in the environment... yet in context... WE put alot more of it into the sytem, percent based, than each local ecosystem does in whole. You should know, you dealt with the crap. Personally I am much more concerned with fertilizers and mercury and heavy metals.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
One thing that strikes me is that scientists on the 'non-man-made-warming' side of the fence are immediately dismissed as Exxon shills. (whether their salaries are paid by Exxon or not)-- NO one with big pockets finances research that would serve to contradict the prevailing academia/leftist wisdom that global-warming is FACT, so if it is to happen, someone like Exxon has to do it--And instead of having to debate said scientists on the merits of their data, the LEft simply dismisses them as shills/hacks. Look what happened to that poor sob at NASA who merely opined that perhaps the current conditions were natural
The reason this was such a big deal, is what you are missing. It is not the job of the head of ANY scientific organization to present an OPINION. He did not present a hypothesis, or any supporting data. He simply stood up there and presented his OPINION. That is why so many scientists were upset. Whether his opinion is right or wrong, he did not back up his opinion with a hypothesis or any sort of data.
Also, his commenting on Global Warming, publically, from his position, is quite irresponsible. He holds no degrees in any sort of relevance to the stated topic. He did not author a paper on the subject. He didn't even present a hypothesis. He just stated what he felt, which could be construed as fact, though there were no statistics used to back up his position. All of his master's degrees are in aeronautical engineering, none of which deal with the topic of climate studies. They make him a good choice for director of NASA, yet not a climate scientist.
-
Opinions or not, degrees or not, 0.5 deg errors or not, any Eskimo or Inuit can tell what's happening without even having a termometer.
And 6 degrees globalwise in a century is not JUST something, it's a bloody DISASTER!
-
6 degrees? I've never seen that, Heard 3/4 of one degree over the past 100 years MANY times
-
6 degrees in a century is the most outlandish prediction that any computer "model" could make and I think that you will find that it has some pretty bizarre parameters. It says that the world has no clouds and that greenhouse gas is the only thing that can change climate. No other factor is allowed. No sun increase or decrease... no earths rotation... not tectonic shift or el nino or la nina.... none..nothing zip nada.
The majority of the global warming alarmists agree tho on a slightly more reasonable increase (all else staying the same) of about 1 or 2 degrees in 100 or so years.
If man made co2 is 0.3% of this increase.. well.. you do the math on how much we can reduce the one or two degrees that will happen by cutting our co2 by 30% (we are only 25%) of the increase in co2)
lazs
-
moray.. we do agree that scientists don't agree.. you are not a climate scientist... you think co2 is warming the planet and that the 25% increase that humans are adding will cause a catastrophic event. This seems like an odd thing and that the numbers don't add up but...
You have good company. 2,500 people with advanced degrees (dozens maybe with degrees in climate science) have signed documents saying that you are right and that it is almost certain that maybe man has a "significant" effect on global warming by his creation of co2.
I have about as much credibility as you on global climate (about nothing) and I disagree. I say that the numbers that anyone ever shows me don't add up and that there is a whole lot of hysteria and false science and reaching and bogus modeling going on and that there is an obvious agenda by a group that has always had an agenda.... and worse... that they are not the concensus.
I am not alone. 19,000 people with advanced degrees have signed a document that says just what I am saying here on these boards. They may or may not have an agenda but they certainly are not being paid by anyone to sign... not like the UN ones eh? they know that to say what they think will cause the kind of uproar that I get here so most don't bother.
While working on my degree I have had to take geology and chemistry classes and the profs for those classes both agree that co2 being the driver is silly. they are only two people but... not everyone agrees.
also..I understand your abhorance of "pollution" given your work... but... co2 is not pollution. Co2 is a benificial and natural gas that is the stuff of life... more is way better than less. too much makes plants grow better... too little makes it hell on earth.
And... lastly The sun. The poor old sun has not been "discredited" as you say. one article came out saying that brightness (not all solar activity) can only account for 25% of the increase.. or more... I use their 25% number tho..
What????? 25% of the increase and they never felt it was worth mentioning till a few months ago? and then only to discredit? with something that important wouldn't you think that at least 25 times more research and model making would be made based on the sun than on the tiny co2 contribution???
so we have a few articles saying the sun is "only" a 25% or so player in the warming... all based on a ten year span on a chart that is based on weather stations that are faulty and that is enough to not even look at the sun as a driver anymore? No further research needed eh? one article should be plenty.
lazs
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
The reason this was such a big deal, is what you are missing. It is not the job of the head of ANY scientific organization to present an OPINION. He did not present a hypothesis, or any supporting data. He simply stood up there and presented his OPINION. That is why so many scientists were upset. Whether his opinion is right or wrong, he did not back up his opinion with a hypothesis or any sort of data.
Also, his commenting on Global Warming, publically, from his position, is quite irresponsible. He holds no degrees in any sort of relevance to the stated topic. He did not author a paper on the subject. He didn't even present a hypothesis. He just stated what he felt, which could be construed as fact, though there were no statistics used to back up his position. All of his master's degrees are in aeronautical engineering, none of which deal with the topic of climate studies. They make him a good choice for director of NASA, yet not a climate scientist.
Point taken, but if a guy has a PHD and FIVE MASTERS, excuse me for listening to his opinion--and my point was more the level of hysteria with which he has BEEN beat down--dissenting views in this area are simply NOT allowed--
The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming.[/i] This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.
The Weather Channel’s (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.
"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns," Cullen wrote in her December 21 weblog on the Weather Channel Website
Cullen’s call for decertification of TV weathermen who do not agree with her global warming assessment follows a year (2006) in which the media, Hollywood and environmentalists tried their hardest to demonize scientific skeptics of manmade global warming. Scott Pelley, CBS News 60 Minutes correspondent, compared skeptics of global warming to "Holocaust deniers" and former Vice President turned foreign lobbyist Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers." See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=A4017645-DE27-43D7-8C37-8FF923FD73F8 & http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=E58DFF04-5A65-42A4-9F82-87381DE894CD
LINK (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32ABC0B0-802A-23AD-440A-88824BB8E528)
-
Earths temp, - may I point out, is very visible on the polar areas. 3/4 in the atmosphere calculated and all, is not the equal energy of 3/4 in the oceans, and that with melting ice.
6. Never saw that untill today, but I don't buy it. 6 would be a catastrophy.
-
yep.. it is just this kind of hysteria and marxist "the end justifies the means" type of thinking that has set me off.
No debate allowed.. the sun... an admitted 25% to 75% player in the game not even bothered to be researched until the "deniers" point it out and everyone says "yeah.. what about that?" then the alarmists scramble to put together one or two articles to say the sun is ONLY 25% of the increase??? 25 to 50 times the amount of mans so called contribution and you can find nothing on it?
How is the agenda not apparent to anyone who bothers to look? What kind of a scientist says that any research that does not agree with their conclusion should be ignored or ridiculed and the researchers lose their acreditation???
lazs
-
Well, even Gore has confessed overstating things to get attention to his point.
But anyway, the Sun is being researched as we speak.
-
Moray is just another global warming acolyte, their religion is a religion of fear. Listen to Angus with his 6 degrees OMG OMG OMG OMG the ski is falling!!! THE ICE IS MELTING!!!!! WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!
Sheep.
20 years from now when the next environmental scare mongering thing is global cooling or mutant ants or some other BS will you look back on this and be skeptical or just stay in the flock and bleat away?
This is all about political power and money.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Well, even Gore has confessed overstating things to get attention to his point.
But anyway, the Sun is being researched as we speak.
Yet that doesn't make you wonder? He has to lie to make his points, yet you still buy his crap.
:rolleyes:
Your island isn't going to melt, your not going to die, your kids will be fine. Relax.
-
Lie? No, overstate.
My island is melting where there is ice, but that's just a little part of it. However, all the nicest places will be flooded as a side-result. Including where I live. And if my children live to grow old, this might actually happen in their time.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Lie? No, overstate.
My island is melting where there is ice, but that's just a little part of it. However, all the nicest places will be flooded as a side-result. Including where I live. And if my children live to grow old, this might actually happen in their time.
Angus, how do you tell a Politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
Its a joke but it applies very much to gore.
Don't you get tired of worrying about this ****? Nothing you do will change it either way.
-
Looks like a Y2K bug hit the NASA temperature model. Shows that 5 of 10 hottest years occured before WWII.... And 1934 out does 1998 as the hottest year on record.
Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data (http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm)
Terror
-
Gtora2:
"Nothing you do will change it either way."
What exactly?
And BTW wasn't Churchill also a Politician? After all he saw and defined a threat, responded, fought, and then a little while later the USA found itself in the brew as well....
Guess he was overstating stuff....
-
angus... it doesn't bother you that these guys are admitting that they are exaggerating the apocolypse? that the doom and gloom is mostly a lie?
Well... it bothers me. what kind of scientists are these anyway? not any that I would ever listen to in the future.
Now the data shows that the hottest years were before the increase in co2?
That doesn't bother you? they were frigging wrong.. they are always wrong.
Now they have decided to do research on the sun? what is next.. research el nino and la nina?
admit it.. they have an agenda and they use some real ugly lies and tactics to get their message out... "the end justifies the means" is their mantra.
Well... I don't think the end justifies the means except by coincidence.. I believe that all we have is the means and the means needs to be what we live by.
I have listened to their doom and gloom and exageration about everything all my life and am frankly.... sick of hearing them flap their jaws.. sick of their BS.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
Gtora2:
"Nothing you do will change it either way."
What exactly?
And BTW wasn't Churchill also a Politician? After all he saw and defined a threat, responded, fought, and then a little while later the USA found itself in the brew as well....
Guess he was overstating stuff....
Yeah he was a politican from a different era, one I would like to think was more honest.
Also Hitler was a real threat. Global warming is not.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Point taken, but if a guy has a PHD and FIVE MASTERS, excuse me for listening to his opinion--and my point was more the level of hysteria with which he has BEEN beat down--dissenting views in this area are simply NOT allowed--
Sir, he has a PhD and 5 master's in aeronautical engineering. He is well versed in preparing a vehicle for safe passage through said atmosphere, and outside of it. His "opinion" on said matter should be taken no heavier nor lighter than if he offered an opinion on banking practices. The danger herein, is people such as yourself designate his education as the end all, and since it concurs with your viewpoint, you determine he must be correct, and that it lends weight to your argument. The reason he backed off his statements, is he realized he overstepped his position, and was irresponsible. He is an engineer, and I get the impression he was steered into the response by the interviewer. Yes, I think he was coerced a bit, to give that statement... maybe led, is a better word. His opinon on the affects on any presence or lack of any gas in the atmosphere and it's affect on climate is negligible in it's worth.
When someone stands up with a hypothesis, AND supporting data, then I will look at it objectively, and so should you. Currently, the hypothesis is testing out true, and their predictions are actually BEHIND what is going on. Perhaps some of you should familiarize yourself with scientific papers, and not science column writers. I know that reading a scientific paper can be tedious, but it is written that way in order to limit the amount of opinion. Science writers, interpret papers written by authors into general language and disseminate it into the mainstream. I feel alot of the real information is being lost in this interpretation process, myself.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Sir, he has a PhD and 5 master's in aeronautical engineering.
Actually he has a PhD in Aerospace Science, and Masters in Aerospace Science, Electrical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Applied Physics, and Business Administration.
Once one gets a Masters in Aeronatical Engineering, (which he does not have) one does not have to go back and do it again four times.
-
Originally posted by Terror
Looks like a Y2K bug hit the NASA temperature model. Shows that 5 of 10 hottest years occured before WWII.... And 1934 out does 1998 as the hottest year on record.
Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data (http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm)
Terror
You are posting a blogger site as a reference? A guy by the name of "masher". Give me a break. He gives absolutely no way to backcheck his statistics, no way to cross reference. Even if his dispute is correct and now 1934 is the warmest year on record, also something very improbable...and any scientist will tell you, one plot on a graph is not indicative of anything, just looking at the data set he uses, (of which most are hidden, btw) you CAN STILL SEE THE UPWARD TREND over the century.
This individual is attempting to discredit on the basis of singular plot point flaws. It is cheap, and anyone knowledgeable would laugh. Unfortunately, most americans don't think past the story they just read. Technically speaking, he could be correct, yet there is no way to prove either. I reserve my right to trash this reference, who obviously is taqking a cheap shot.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Once one gets a Masters in Aeronatical Engineering, (which he does not have) one does not have to go back and do it again four times.
lol. I was trying to figure that out myself.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Actually he has a PhD in Aerospace Science, and Masters in Aerospace Science, Electrical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Applied Physics, and Business Administration.
Once one gets a Masters in Aeronatical Engineering, (which he does not have) one does not have to go back and do it again four times.
You are absolutely correct, those are his list of accredited degrees. I was saving time in my posts by not referencing them directly. I was not aware my post was being dissected in such a way. I used an amalgomation of his degrees to make my post shorter and therefore readable. My apologies if I should be more concise.
I'm pretty sure I don't see "Climateolgy" or "Meteorology" in his accredations though.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
You are absolutely correct, those are his list of accredited degrees. I was saving time in my posts by not referencing them directly. I was not aware my post was being dissected in such a way. I used an amalgomation of his degrees to make my post shorter and therefore readable. My apologies if I should be more concise.
I'm pretty sure I don't see "Climateolgy" or "Meteorology" in his accredations though.
Would not the 'climatologists' and the 'meteorologists'be the folks who predicated the worst hurricane season EVER? Water was cooler, no hurricanes.....hmm 17 named storms were predicted....9 were created (and only 5 of those were hurricanes), and only one got into the Gulf. Obviously, a lot of things came together to squash the creation of storms, but it isn't hard to conclude that it's not a precise science, and some settling of contents may occur during handling
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
I'm pretty sure I don't see "Climateolgy" or "Meteorology" in his accredations though.
In the mid 1970s, it would have been hard to find a hundred scientists with high ability and consistent dedication to solving the puzzles of climate change. Now as before, many of the most important new findings on climate came from people whose main work lay in other fields, from air pollution to space science, as temporary detours from their main concerns.
History of Climatology (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/climogy.htm)
-
News update. Nothing surprizing.
The N-arctic ice is below all-time low. Total all-time low, as well as sesonal. It's therefore going to put a new record every day for the next month or two.
In the meantime the forum people and the scientists are going to be pulling each others hairs in a fight for credibility.
-
Originally posted by Angus
News update. Nothing surprizing.
The N-arctic ice is below all-time low.
What's your time scale on all time?
If all time is since say 1850, I would agree with you.
The ice in Eric the Red's time was at what level?
-
Ozone layer, anyone?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
What's your time scale on all time?
If all time is since say 1850, I would agree with you.
The ice in Eric the Red's time was at what level?
Actually, all time since the end of the Iceage.
However some glaciers on land were smaller in Eric's time. At least on the N-Arctic areas. Not sure of the alps.
And Ozone layer? Well, it was about to leave the party, but is now recovering a little.
-
I noticed this in the news tubes: "Global warming and cooling linked to the sunspot cycle (http://space.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn12459)". I'm a cheapo so I can't report anything more than what the non-subscriber teaser article says.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Actually, all time since the end of the Iceage.
However some glaciers on land were smaller in Eric's time. At least on the N-Arctic areas. Not sure of the alps.
And Ozone layer? Well, it was about to leave the party, but is now recovering a little.
...and the stratospheric Ozone level in 1250 AD was...?
-
moray... yep.. I noticed that you like to "save time" in your posts by not really saying anything.
nothing but... you are a scientist and we are not... you read articles that are correct and we don't.. that anyone who disagrees doesn't have the right degrees...
Do you have a degree in climate? did you know that more than 90% of the signatories on the UN document do not have any degree in the field of climate science? Why should I listen to them?
19,000 scientists with advanced degrees think the math does not add up... the leftie scientists are not even allowing debate. They, like you, say... well... we can't give you numbers and we can't predict next week or nest year and... we are wrong about just about everything we have predicted so far but... you just have to trust us... it is really bad and gonna get so bad that only we can save you.
How can our contribution to greenhouse gas of which 99.72% is natural, not man made... how can our tiny bit of contribution be causing the planet to heat?
how can any amount of reduction of our contribution make any difference? 30% of nothing is nothing.
How is algore burning up 2500 bucks a month in oil and then paying someone to plant trees half a world away gonna help?
Why is it that only when it becomes obvious that the sun has a lot more to do with the heating of the planet 25-50% by even the most rabid co2 is king scientists... why is it that only when people nail em to the wall do they hastily put out some articles to say it is nothing and that just now studies are starting?
Just now starting to study the frigging sun? You work in the ocean.. how much do you know about the expanding ocean floor and el nino and la nina?
Not much.. because.. because no one does.. we do know that it radicaly changes climate tho... maybe we should take some of the co2 modelers off their fat butts and get em into looking at that.
The "deniers" have always said that the numbers don't add up.. that natural causes have to be the lions share of any climate change with man not capable of more than about a 1% or so part in any change. 1% of one degree or so in 100 years... all else being equal. that would mean that nature co operated and stayed dormant. the models are based on all warming in the last 100 years being only because of co2 rise.... not 25-50% of it being the sun or the rest being shifts in the planet of one kind or another.
They have assigned a weight to co2 that it can't have.
meanwhile... it has been a very mild winter here with less than normal rain and the temps for this summer have been some of the mildest on record.
lazs
-
angus.. reading about ozone is interesting. it appears that there is a natural thinning over the polar cap that has always been there and always will.
I can't find any definitive article that says that the ozone is recovering or that it was ever in any serious trouble. I do find that we it is now admitted that we knew and know very little about it.
Which is not the way the "scientists" presented the subject back when it was the end of life as we know it.
http://www.totse.com/en/politics/green_planet/envhoax.html
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
moray... yep.. I noticed that you like to "save time" in your posts by not really saying anything.
nothing but... you are a scientist and we are not... you read articles that are correct and we don't.. that anyone who disagrees doesn't have the right degrees...
Do you have a degree in climate? did you know that more than 90% of the signatories on the UN document do not have any degree in the field of climate science? Why should I listen to them?
19,000 scientists with advanced degrees think the math does not add up... the leftie scientists are not even allowing debate. They, like you, say... well... we can't give you numbers and we can't predict next week or nest year and... we are wrong about just about everything we have predicted so far but... you just have to trust us... it is really bad and gonna get so bad that only we can save you.
How can our contribution to greenhouse gas of which 99.72% is natural, not man made... how can our tiny bit of contribution be causing the planet to heat?
how can any amount of reduction of our contribution make any difference? 30% of nothing is nothing.
How is algore burning up 2500 bucks a month in oil and then paying someone to plant trees half a world away gonna help?
Why is it that only when it becomes obvious that the sun has a lot more to do with the heating of the planet 25-50% by even the most rabid co2 is king scientists... why is it that only when people nail em to the wall do they hastily put out some articles to say it is nothing and that just now studies are starting?
Just now starting to study the frigging sun? You work in the ocean.. how much do you know about the expanding ocean floor and el nino and la nina?
Not much.. because.. because no one does.. we do know that it radicaly changes climate tho... maybe we should take some of the co2 modelers off their fat butts and get em into looking at that.
The "deniers" have always said that the numbers don't add up.. that natural causes have to be the lions share of any climate change with man not capable of more than about a 1% or so part in any change. 1% of one degree or so in 100 years... all else being equal. that would mean that nature co operated and stayed dormant. the models are based on all warming in the last 100 years being only because of co2 rise.... not 25-50% of it being the sun or the rest being shifts in the planet of one kind or another.
They have assigned a weight to co2 that it can't have.
meanwhile... it has been a very mild winter here with less than normal rain and the temps for this summer have been some of the mildest on record.
lazs
Listen Laz...
At least I admit when someone puts up information that is more specific than my post and admit I shortcut in it, I didn't realize someone would not understand why I would have said that the way I did. I've never seen you even hint at ever being less than perfect.
You're the reason I stay away from these boards. You spout constantly about how it's this or that, you're right and EVERYONE else is wrong. Your numbers come from constantly corrupted sources that give no checkable data sets. You espouse a view as your own that is only so because you read it somewhere, and have a contempt for science, somehow.
I read articles that may or may not be correct, BUT AT LEAST I CAN CHECK THEIR DATA. At least I can look and see if the statement they are trying to make is procedurally sound, that their hypothesis isn't horribly flawed. EVERYTHING you post here is completely uncheckable and unsourced. You think they are JUST now studying the sun? Trust me, that was the first place they looked (Achem's Razor, look it up), and after that they went on the orbital mechanics trail of breadcrumbs, then after that another look at sunspots... Somewhere in your head you really think that scientists CARE about what real reason there is for climate change, that, "if it's us, (people) causing the change, a whole lot of grants will be handed out and we all will make money. YOU have zero clue. A scientist, at least a true one, not bought by money such as the big oil interests, DOESN'T CARE what the reason is, they just want to figure it out. I got a hint for you, there isn't money in science, there never was and there never will be. There is a whole boatload of money in OIL, in MANUFACTURING, in ELECTRICITY... alll the same folks who are trying to disprove a manmade causal relationship.
Your last statement is plain "bunk". What are you trying to say? That because one season has been mild, in your locale, that that somehow disproves any climate change? Your simplistic view of this is astounding... read more and you'll find out any local seasonal conditions, high or low, are not indicative of anything in a climate. That is one of the simpler rules of the debate, and one which you are obviously not familiar with. Your statement there and ignorance contained therein, tells me exactly how much of both sides you have read.
Expanding ocean floor? El nino, La Nina? You are reaching. trying to grasp something which you don't get.
-
Yay!!!!!
More global warming threads to read.
Post more! Post more!
-
Everyone reading this thread will be dead of old age before enough time goes by to see which side was right.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Listen Laz...
...
What are you trying to say? That because one season has been mild, in your locale, that that somehow disproves any climate change? ....
but 30 warming seasons within the historical statistical noise and within general warming trend since the end of the little ice age does prove climate change....
-
This guy just ended his upward ascension into academia:
http://www.uah.edu/news/newsread.php?newsID=875
The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.
That was not what he expected to find.
"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases," he said. "That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space."
The results of this research were published today in the American Geophysical Union's "Geophysical Research Letters" on-line edition. The paper was co-authored by UAHuntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.
"While low clouds have a predominantly cooling effect due to their shading of sunlight, most cirrus clouds have a net warming effect on the Earth," Spencer said. With high altitude ice clouds their infrared heat trapping exceeds their solar shading effect.
"The role of clouds in global warming is widely agreed to be pretty uncertain," Spencer said. "Right now, all climate models predict that clouds will amplify warming. I'm betting that if the climate models' 'clouds' were made to behave the way we see these clouds behave in nature, it would substantially reduce the amount of climate change the models predict for the coming decades."
Hmm..real scientist too
-
Originally posted by bj229r
This guy just ended his upward ascension into academia:
http://www.uah.edu/news/newsread.php?newsID=875
Hmm..real scientist too
Very interesting post... ty... Am actually looking forwrd to reading the paper he co-authored. One cautionary note... Always be wary reading any paper, authored or co-authored by anyone at Lawrence-Livermore. They've had a few instances of corrupted data bought by special interests.
-
moray... you need to follow a few of the links I have provided.. many of them are heavily footnoted and it is easy to follow the links to the original papers that were heavily peer reviewed.
The fact is that the math just doesn't add up. Co2 doesn't have the suds to cause much of anything but more plant growth... it is not pollution...and it is benifieal.
My comments on our mild years here was in response to angus who claimed that he didn't need science to tell that man was destroying the globe.. he could look outside and... as was pointed out... that one season is as good an indicator as the 30 or so that your guys are using in the grand scheme of things.
I have read lots of peer reviewed papers and the ones that claim it is man made co2.. they lack convincing data. they numbers just don't add up. They don't take into account other natural causes that have been at work from the beginning of time and..
They are admit the margin of error is huge... bigger than the warming they claim to have observed. if they make a huge error like the 30' ocean rise prediction... they pretend they never said it.. it they predict horrific hurricanes for the next year... they say "no big deal... anomaly" when it never happens.
They can predict nothing for a week a year 5 years or one hundred years. their models do not work. They don't work because they are prostituting the science for political reasons.
and monetary.. they are making thousands of times more money and fame from their peers than any "oil company" is handing out to a few scientists to do research... a thing that BTW... is normal and acceptable.
Still... most "deniers" have gotten no money whatsoever... from anyone and.. it has hurt their careers... they are the brave ones.. not the ones following the current political agenda.
And who are these 19,000 scientists who have signed the petition saying they think it is bunk? they have as much education and right to speak as you certainly? Who is paying them?
I will ask you this tho... do you think your job would be more secure if you went out and said to anyone that listened that you didn't think man could possibly be making the planet warmer... at least not with harmless and benificial co2 gas production?
Here is your chance to be honest to yourself and understand what is going on with the "movement". The real money behind the thing. You not working is a good reason for you to go with the flow. Better than a couple of grand to write a paper that an oil company would pay you.
Toad is right tho... we will probly all get old and dead before the alarmists give up... I believe that it will cool enough in our lifetimes tho that the alarmists will have to change tactics before long.
already... there is less about the whole thing thrown at us every day...more about "green" than about co2. people won't buy the co2 myth.. not without a lot more than stuttering and stammering and the bs numbers I have seen thrown around..
If you put that stuff out there in one paper for people to look at and to base their life on... it would get ripped to shreds for the bs guessing and alarmist crap that it is.
Instead.. pompus a holes simply say "it is too difficult for you to understand but we are scientists so trust us... we have COMPUTER models.. they don't lie!!"
In the end... nature will screw you arrogant salamanders and everyone will laugh about how naive you were and be a little embarassed that we fell for it... again.
If we live long enough we will watch you guys try the same type of scam on us a couple of major and a dozen minor times. we will be just as ashamed of this as we are about radon gas or second hand smoke or the 1999 ice age or simply....
butter.... good for us this week or bad?
lazs
lazs
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
You're the reason I stay away from these boards.
Yet another scientist shoots down his own statement .
Yep.....these are the folks to believe in .
:rolleyes:
-
It's been posted before but is worth a reread from time to time:
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html
-
Originally posted by lazs2
moray... you need to follow a few of the links I have provided.. many of them are heavily footnoted and it is easy to follow the links to the original papers that were heavily peer reviewed.
The fact is that the math just doesn't add up. Co2 doesn't have the suds to cause much of anything but more plant growth... it is not pollution...and it is benifieal.
My comments on our mild years here was in response to angus who claimed that he didn't need science to tell that man was destroying the globe.. he could look outside and... as was pointed out... that one season is as good an indicator as the 30 or so that your guys are using in the grand scheme of things.
I have read lots of peer reviewed papers and the ones that claim it is man made co2.. they lack convincing data. they numbers just don't add up. They don't take into account other natural causes that have been at work from the beginning of time and..
They are admit the margin of error is huge... bigger than the warming they claim to have observed. if they make a huge error like the 30' ocean rise prediction... they pretend they never said it.. it they predict horrific hurricanes for the next year... they say "no big deal... anomaly" when it never happens.
They can predict nothing for a week a year 5 years or one hundred years. their models do not work. They don't work because they are prostituting the science for political reasons.
and monetary.. they are making thousands of times more money and fame from their peers than any "oil company" is handing out to a few scientists to do research... a thing that BTW... is normal and acceptable.
Still... most "deniers" have gotten no money whatsoever... from anyone and.. it has hurt their careers... they are the brave ones.. not the ones following the current political agenda.
And who are these 19,000 scientists who have signed the petition saying they think it is bunk? they have as much education and right to speak as you certainly? Who is paying them?
I will ask you this tho... do you think your job would be more secure if you went out and said to anyone that listened that you didn't think man could possibly be making the planet warmer... at least not with harmless and benificial co2 gas production?
Here is your chance to be honest to yourself and understand what is going on with the "movement". The real money behind the thing. You not working is a good reason for you to go with the flow. Better than a couple of grand to write a paper that an oil company would pay you.
Toad is right tho... we will probly all get old and dead before the alarmists give up... I believe that it will cool enough in our lifetimes tho that the alarmists will have to change tactics before long.
already... there is less about the whole thing thrown at us every day...more about "green" than about co2. people won't buy the co2 myth.. not without a lot more than stuttering and stammering and the bs numbers I have seen thrown around..
If you put that stuff out there in one paper for people to look at and to base their life on... it would get ripped to shreds for the bs guessing and alarmist crap that it is.
Instead.. pompus a holes simply say "it is too difficult for you to understand but we are scientists so trust us... we have COMPUTER models.. they don't lie!!"
In the end... nature will screw you arrogant salamanders and everyone will laugh about how naive you were and be a little embarassed that we fell for it... again.
If we live long enough we will watch you guys try the same type of scam on us a couple of major and a dozen minor times. we will be just as ashamed of this as we are about radon gas or second hand smoke or the 1999 ice age or simply....
butter.... good for us this week or bad?
lazs
lazs
You've spent too much time in your basement surrounded by radon gas bathed in second hand smoke.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Yet another scientist shoots down his own statement .
Yep.....these are the folks to believe in .
:rolleyes:
You truly make me laugh. :noid
-
Toad is right in saying that most of the people in this thread will be dead, before the full effects of global warming are felt. Most of us in this thread, with the possible exception of Angus, are secure on landmasses that won’t flood or melt, for the time being.
But whether or not you believe that anthropogenic greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, and even if you don’t believe global warming is happening at all, I believe there’s still a compelling case for developing and using alternative fuels.
Those who support the continued use (and therefore continued dependence upon) foreign oil do so because they feel the US economy would suffer harm any other way. But wait – oil prices were running at close to $78/bbl until a few days ago, when fallout from America's sub-prime mortgage debacle caused the price to ease back towards $70/bbl. But that’s just a temporary blip, and the price will bounce back, spurred on by demand from China and India. Which means that America will once again be spending around a billion dollars a day on imported oil. The price is set to go much higher, and I believe $100/bbl is possible within 2-3 years. When that happens, remember where you heard it first. And when that day comes, America’s expenditure on imported oil will be $500bn per year, or one trillion dollars every two years. And yet the folks supporting continued use of oil say that the alternative would “harm the US economy”. Oh yeah, and spending $500bn per year on imported oil will not? :rolleyes:
Folks might argue against ethanol on the grounds of difficulties growing the necessary crops, or that it would be a stopgap measure. Well Brazil is already doing it, and Sweden too. Indeed, it is anticipated that all cars on Sweden’s roads will be running on ethanol by 2020. And, if ethanol does turn out to be only a stopgap measure, at least it would be a Made-in-America stopgap measure while we develop something else.
Guys like Lazs want the free market to control everything, forgetting that new fuel technologies take time to develop. Hydrogen fuel and nukes are not simply going to fall out of the sky, and land right side up in a neighbourhood near you. Even if a programme of building nuclear powered electricity generating facilities were to be started today, it could be 10 years before the first station came on stream and began to deliver power. That is why action is required now, to avoid the inevitable situation by which OPEC oil becomes so expensive that America’s dependence upon it screws the US economy.
Someone up above said that “oil would be around for a long, long time”. I would say that oil is in its twilight years. The United Arab Emirates exports around 2.5m barrels of oil daily – about one eight of what America consumes and 45% of the total UAE portfolio of export commodities. A yet the UAE spends billions of $ developing tourism. Now why would they do a thing like that, when they’ve got all that oil? Maybe they know something we don’t? ;)
The same person is dismissive of any branch of science that does not deliver results which are 100% accurate 100% of the time. He’ll mock weather forecasting, for no better a reason than the forecasters don’t always get it right. Yes I know that they don’t always get it right. But I also know that in the field of aviation, any pilot worth his salt obtains an en route weather forecast before taking to the skies. But to the rednecks of this world, if ONE weather forecast is hosed, then “meteorology is crap” or, to use the current vogue term from the redneck vernacular, it’s “junk science”. :rolleyes: Such individuals forget that science is often a voyage of discovery, with findings being disclosed along the way – just as the link between smoking and cancer/heart disease was first announced in the 1950s – much to the mirth of the tobacco lobby – but was proven much later.
Another, most peculiar, approach to science is the theory of Lazsotology, in which the “scientist” starts out with the results he wants to “prove” eg. “it’s the sun stupid”, and then goes in search of material with which to support his position. Someone like Lazs will seize upon ONE (flawed) tv programme and present it as “fact”. He’ll point to a (flawed) document, clearly written by a Big Oil sympathiser, which tells the reader what the reader wants to hear. As was pointed out, the level of anthropogenic CO2 released annually was understated by a factor of four in that document, but this BIG LIE is dismissed as a “minor detail” in the field of Lazsotology, and is therefore irrelevant. Yeah right! The actual figure was downplayed because it’s what worried Americans wanted to hear. Um, can you say… agenda?
Hitler was a threat. Global warming is not
– is what gtora2 said. I agree with half of that. Hitler was indeed a threat. He was a threat when he invaded Austria in 1938. He was a threat when he stormed into Poland in 1939. He was a threat when he began gassing Jews along the way. But wait – America was dismissive of this threat until 1941, preferring instead to bask in the status of a neutral country rather than to act against the threat of Nazi tyranny. It wasn’t until a direct attack upon American interests (7th Dec. 1941) that America finally decided to take that threat seriously.
It’ll be the same for global warming: Until American interests come under some sort of direct threat, a huge swathe of America will go on in the belief that global warming is not man made or is not happening at all. Maybe when it gets so warm in California that the frosting on gtora2’s donuts melts and slides off into his lap, even he will concede that there is a problem.
Right now, GTOra2 says that global warming is not a threat, by which he means it is not a threat to America in 2007/2008, and maybe for a few years beyond that. But it certainly is a threat! Low lying countries in equatorial waters such as Bangladesh are at serious risk of becoming submerged – already happening. Various organisms can no longer survive in what was their natural habitat – already happening. And, as an example, even the English blackcurrant is reportedly under threat because of a series of mild winters which cause it to develop too early in the next summer season –already happening. Anyone who’s had an education (and I realise that does not include everyone in this thread) can tell you that allowing the food chain to be porked up this way is not a good idea because loss of one species of animal or plant will affect organisms further up the food chain and, ultimately, us. But what does GTO care, as long as there’s a Dunkin Donuts on the block – do they even make blackcurrant donuts? :lol
Still gtora2 is right about one thing. He’s more of a man than I’ll ever be…
… about 200lb more! :rofl
-
Moray37,
what do you think about methane hydrate (solid form of water that contains a large amount of methane)
extremely large deposits of methane hydrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of Earth).
Could this be the reason we had at the end of the Paleocene (55.5 to 54.8 Mya)
it was marked by one of the most significant periods of global change during the Cenozoic Era. A sudden global climate change, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), upset oceanic and atmospheric circulation, leading to the extinction of numerous deep-sea benthic foraminifera and a major turnover in mammalian life on land that marked the emergence of mammalian lines recognizable today.
Tracking the ratio of carbon isotopes in marine calcium carbonate sediments, a sharp decrease was found in the amount of heavy carbon in 55-million-year-old marine fossils. A synchronous drop in carbon isotope ratios in many terrestrial environments has also been identified,
indicating that a gas with very low amounts of heavy C-13 appears to have flooded the atmosphere.
Looks like a sea surface temperatures rose between 5 and 8°C could be enough to restart PETM soon?
An alternative theory proposes that a comet impact triggered the PETM?
R
Gh0stFT
-
I find it difficult to believe that greedy American oil companies will simply fade out of existence when oil becomes too scarce to be useful---Self-preservation on THEIR part will cause us to see alternative forms of energy (which they can make money off of), and end the greatest reported cause of afore-mentioned warming will whither on the vine
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
You are posting a blogger site as a reference? A guy by the name of "masher". Give me a break. He gives absolutely no way to backcheck his statistics, no way to cross reference. Even if his dispute is correct and now 1934 is the warmest year on record, also something very improbable...and any scientist will tell you, one plot on a graph is not indicative of anything, just looking at the data set he uses, (of which most are hidden, btw) you CAN STILL SEE THE UPWARD TREND over the century.
This individual is attempting to discredit on the basis of singular plot point flaws. It is cheap, and anyone knowledgeable would laugh. Unfortunately, most americans don't think past the story they just read. Technically speaking, he could be correct, yet there is no way to prove either. I reserve my right to trash this reference, who obviously is taqking a cheap shot.
From the article:
NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.
NASA reworked their numbers, not the blogger. Here is the Reworked NASA Data (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt)
Terror
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
You've spent too much time in your basement surrounded by radon gas bathed in second hand smoke.
Looks like you lose at the internets lol.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
Moray37,
what do you think about methane hydrate (solid form of water that contains a large amount of methane)
extremely large deposits of methane hydrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of Earth).
Could this be the reason we had at the end of the Paleocene (55.5 to 54.8 Mya)
it was marked by one of the most significant periods of global change during the Cenozoic Era. A sudden global climate change, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), upset oceanic and atmospheric circulation, leading to the extinction of numerous deep-sea benthic foraminifera and a major turnover in mammalian life on land that marked the emergence of mammalian lines recognizable today.
Tracking the ratio of carbon isotopes in marine calcium carbonate sediments, a sharp decrease was found in the amount of heavy carbon in 55-million-year-old marine fossils. A synchronous drop in carbon isotope ratios in many terrestrial environments has also been identified,
indicating that a gas with very low amounts of heavy C-13 appears to have flooded the atmosphere.
Looks like a sea surface temperatures rose between 5 and 8°C could be enough to restart PETM soon?
An alternative theory proposes that a comet impact triggered the PETM?
R
Gh0stFT
I think, honestly, it's the one thing we have to fear the most. It is the single worst "greenhouse gas". It's heavy, it tends to hold in thermal radiation in concentration, and it binds with very few compounds, which makes it very interesting in the free form. And, no, we're not talkin about flatulence release, which, I already know, someone will go flailing off on (see laz) saying we now have to hold in our farts. The methane locked up in hydrate form (bound with ice or permafrost) is of quantity much more than that of all the release of all the animals on the planet. Also, CH4 is very tough to bind with other compounds. It is a metabolic inhibitor, unless it used by a chemiosynthetic organism. Once released it pervades in a gaseous form for a lengthy period...until locked back in hydrate form.
For a long time, the PETM was a mystery, how it happened and raised the global mean so fast... until someone looked into the methane deposits sitting in permafrost and the seabed. Suddenly all the traces started making alot of sense. The most disturbing thing to me, is recent cores seem to indicate the last ice age was ended by a similar event of lesser magnitude, and that that event may have ended the ice age in as little as 20 years.
Good post. Nice to see someone thinking past CO2.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Looks like you lose at the internets lol.
-Sik
Can anyone possibly make sense of this? Is this english?
-
English for pull out the broomstick.
-
Ay, the methane. That's the scary one. After that dunheap escapes, everything we did untill now is just a joke. And that's why folks like me worry about the great warming in the arctic areas.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
You truly make me laugh.
Good thing you are not on this side of the screen.
You would bust a gut. :aok
-
ocean.. too early to call you beetle... I have never said that we need to find alternative fuel sources or that we will be using oil in our cars for the next hundred years. I think it ironic that the greens are now stuck with saying that nukes are good tho after all the efforts their "scientists" have spent in the past making sure that we have none.
Alternative fuels take time because the time is not right. It will be but the market has to drive it not government. You can't force biofuels... it may not even be a good idea... something better may come along mid stride... coal is abundant.. we can convert or use it till the tech catches up... much better than forcing one idea or another with a government mandate.
I think that it is you and not me tho that is coming to the wrong conclusions about science and weather... you claim that if they can get short term.. like a day of a flight, weather right a lot of the time then that means that they have climate down.
You chide me for not putting them on an altar.. I say that I have the logical way of looking at it... I say that they have made great strides... I praise them that they can often get it right for the next few hours.. they can see systems developing... I think it is amazing when they get 90% of a weekly forecast mostly right...
I am pragmatic tho... I know they don't do well past that... a month... a year... better to just look at entrails at that point... now.. you want me to believe that they suddenly aquired the ability to forecast years... decades.. even centuries into the future? It is you, not I that is not looking at reality. It is you and not I who's agenda is showing.
lazs
-
moray... I am very glad that you are at least looking into other things than co2 as causing climate change. I think that one is about to go out the window in any case.. very little talk of it these days.
But... not when I started these conversations... at that point.. it was a given that co2 was the reason a la algore.. hell... he got an oscar and probly a nobel prize... it was a forgone conclusion that "IT'S THE C02 STUPID"
anyone who disagreed was vilified and there were calls to have em removed from the scientific community... loss of licenses and such...
Of course I am glad that some scientists had the courage to start looking at it objectively... to point out that the math didn't add up. I am glad that other causes are being looked at... I am even glad that they admit that at least.. at the very least.. the sun does 25% of it.
When they stop spinning their wheels on the political agenda co2 boogeyman.. maybe some real research can be done but... ya got to admit.. the fact that so many of em were willing to go along with it means that they are pretty much worthless potatos and not to be trusted with important conclusions for the most part. It will always be prudent to believe about half of what they say is absolute proven fact.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Alternative fuels take time because the time is not right.
Yes it is, which is why it's already happening, like i said, in other countries. Sweden has/had the highest per capita energy expenditure in Europe, and decided to do something about it. Brazil has lots of sugar cane...
And... your northern neighbour has an abundance of nuclear fuel which could be used in nuclear generators. I seem to remember hearing about power shortages in California in the last 2-3 years. Do you still maintain the time is not right?
-
Time is right on high tide.
To sail.
-
Time for a post that will not be read (page 20 no less)
This article is by a Scientist that I am sure is known as a whacko with no credentials at all.
Best of all it is really an enjoyable read
http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonf
-
Originally posted by JimBear
Time for a post that will not be read (page 20 no less)
This article is by a Scientist that I am sure is known as a whacko with no credentials at all.
Best of all it is really an enjoyable read
http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonf
Interesting read JimBear, thanks.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
moray... I am very glad that you are at least looking into other things than co2 as causing climate change. I think that one is about to go out the window in any case.. very little talk of it these days.
But... not when I started these conversations... at that point.. it was a given that co2 was the reason a la algore.. hell... he got an oscar and probly a nobel prize... it was a forgone conclusion that "IT'S THE C02 STUPID"
anyone who disagreed was vilified and there were calls to have em removed from the scientific community... loss of licenses and such...
Of course I am glad that some scientists had the courage to start looking at it objectively... to point out that the math didn't add up. I am glad that other causes are being looked at... I am even glad that they admit that at least.. at the very least.. the sun does 25% of it.
When they stop spinning their wheels on the political agenda co2 boogeyman.. maybe some real research can be done but... ya got to admit.. the fact that so many of em were willing to go along with it means that they are pretty much worthless potatos and not to be trusted with important conclusions for the most part. It will always be prudent to believe about half of what they say is absolute proven fact.
lazs
Laz,
You've never seen me espouse CO2 as the real problem, other than in the acidification process in the ocean. CO2, in my opinion, is the gateway to starting a positive feedback loop, that continues on to the eventual release of many cubic miles of methane into our atmosphere. CO2 is not a particularly good greenhouse gas, definately not on the order of water vapor and CH4.
My fundamental issue lies with the minor consequences that CO2 will transcribe into the end game. CO2 might take us up 3 degrees, 5 degrees, whatever...it's the methane release that will be a serious issue.
CO2 by itself.... not a major concern, well, at least to those of us living higher that 15 feet above sea level... It only accounts for 4% of warming. CO2 as a stepstool to an even worse outcome... very plausible.
-
The force of the finger of a trigger,,,,,of a cannon.
-
moray.. now I am a little confused so far as your beliefs go..
You say that you have never espoused co2 as being the main problem but then go on to say that c02 will cause 3-5 degrees of temperature rise and that will release methane and so.... we need to.. to what?
so.. I ask you.. do you believe that mans contribution to the overall co2 in the atmosphere will warm the planet by as much as 5 degrees over and above all natural causes? and if so...
how soon?
do you also believe that cutting our worldwide contribution... mostly in civilized countries.. by 30% of our tiny little co2 contribution.. that it will make a difference and if so....
how much?
Do you agree with me and the scientists that jimbear linked that focus on co2 is wasting valuable money and resources that could be used for other things?
lazs
-
beetle... er... ah... "ocean"....
The time is not right for alternative fuels on a massive scale... if it were it would be happening right now.
It will be right soon but it needs to come without force and clumsy government intervention.
I will admit that the greenies have bullied the government into making it very difficult for us here to have clean efficient nuke power.
I would like to see the government tell em to screw off but... with so many women democrats in power now... I hold little hope for that.
I see only weepy algore junkscience based on auras and pleas to save the children and feel good crapola... same old same same from the democrats and environmentalists whack jobs.
I see some alcohol in our gas in the future.. maybe 10%.. good for me... more hp.. bad for poor people who want to eat but... not my problem. gas will cost more and so will food but...
coal will get used.. more and more ways are being invented... solar will supplement our basic home needs..
I see a time in the near future when everyone will have a power bill of about 10% of what it is now... I see people in electric runabouts that they can charge for little or nothing to do errands in.
I don't see any of this tho if the women democrats (and you) get their way... I see big government ham fisted meddling and forced focus on what may or may not work with carpetbaggers making zillions off worthless government contracts.
The future looks bright so long as we can keep the bloated government out of it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by JimBear
Time for a post that will not be read (page 20 no less)
This article is by a Scientist that I am sure is known as a whacko with no credentials at all.
Best of all it is really an enjoyable read
http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonf
Great article, JimBear.
-
"beetle... er... ah... "ocean"....
The time is not right for alternative fuels on a massive scale... if it were it would be happening right now.
It will be right soon but it needs to come without force and clumsy government intervention."
Why is the time not right to begin?
As for government intervention, may I point out that WW2 started as a WORLD war with the government interventions of Britain and France...
-
angus.. it is beginning... do you think that no research and development is being done? Look at all the things people are coming up with. Did government invent the flourecent bulb that we are now using?
Did govenment invent biofuels or the engines that run on it?
Look around you man. New uses for coal... hybrids and hydrogen.. solar panels on peoples roofs powering their homes... a myriad of things.
All because of market demand... millions of people working to find a solution and... to get frigging rich and powerful.
and.. what does war have to do with it? I have always said that the role of government is to raise an army for the defense of it's people. It is what here are founded on.
lazs
-
Research is such, that we are mostly running our engines with the science of the 40's.
At the introduction of multi-valve in cars engines and turbos in tractors on the common market, I had to laugh hard, for this was tested and manufactured to death already inWW2. No new invention. But since economy did not demand it (that is, as well, OIL economy), it was not so much needed.
Remember the 70's oil price jump, - suddenly jap cars hat used very little fuel were the biggest in increase.
It's the money. And the money you burn while driving is oil money.
The bosses of oil money are not so many, and they don't like changes that could make their money less just like that.
There are many little inventions somewhere, which all could lower fossile fuel burns . Somehow they lag a little.
There are also alternative energy sources....same story.
While there are indeed many possibilities of both alternative energy and energy saving, they both lack the power as a whole of a big big oil tycoon as well as while the oil price is lower, they are in the lower end of competition.
So, oil power is going to keep them as far down as possible, - it is a conflict that will end...where?
-
Oh, BTW, inventions don't usually come from governments.
Governments do administration. Legalization. Support. Humane stuff. Policing. And sometimes support. Projects. Things like landing on the moon even! Tied up with that is the invention.
Invention, - from a brilliant mind, which very often is a scientist. And many times they work or got started, or educated, by the government. Even supported in their research.
Governments were not the inventors. Just manipulators, but the effect is quite some
-
"Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."
The .....article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.".....
Washington Post article...well this pretty much convinces me.....oh wait, forgot to check the date:1922:rofl
link (http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070814/NATION02/108140063)
-
I am afraid that the gritty reality is actually that the N-Pole will be gone (in summertimes) in some 40 years with the same process.
There will be driftice of course, since the Greenland glacier for instance will keep dumping huge blocks into the sea, - but this is how it looks, and the development is not measured with the 1920's equipment.
So funny...
-
Originally posted by Angus
I am afraid that the gritty reality is actually that the N-Pole will be gone (in summertimes) in some 40 years with the same process.
Bore Oda will be mighty peeved if that happens. :)
The pole won`t be going anywhere.
-
Oh, how witty.
The N-Pole ICE it should have been. So no reason to send subs to look under it (BTW, wasn't it the USS-Nautilius who first crossed there?).
No Ice, easy go, and the Russians are going to have to fight the Danish about the whole affair. Greenland you see.....
BTW, while the axis pole is not moving now, the magnetic one actually is.
-
Originally posted by Angus
No Ice, easy go, and the Russians are going to have to fight the Danish about the whole affair. Greenland you see.....
..........and the U.S. and Canada.
-
Hehe, as well. But the magnetic pole is heading for Boroda :D
-
Just like to say that today was the hottest recorded temperature in Japan, beating the previous record from 1933. Tomorrow is supposed to be hotter. That's all.
-
That proves it... Anthropogenic Global Warming is real.
-
I think they're breaking records in Greece and Italy as well.
Just had some Italian Tourists. They said it was unbearable. 40 celcius all over. But that's...Italy.
They come to me in the cool 20 of Iceland, and I make business :t
However, some 20 years ago, it would have been 10 on celcius this time of year, and much more comfortable in Italy.
I and my heirs will make profit from warming untill we are under water. But what do I care, I'll be dead.
-
Ooops. Looks like the Arctic ice melt models might need to be looked at. According to a report I saw last night on TV, the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology and Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency said the amount of Arctic ice during this years August melt is so small, it's equal to the projections for 2050 or so.
-
so what are they finding in the south pole? It is 90% of all the ice in the world.
that would be.... 90%. as in... everything really.
It is getting thicker... warmer temps for the rest of the planet will increase the ice because snow will be added.
meanwhile... in the US here.. we are enjoying great summers and mild winters with satalite data... you know.. real data.. showing no change for the last 20 years.
Hopefully.. the trend will continue a bit before it goes back to the ice age. If man made pollution got us out of the ice age then we need to congradulate ourselves for a job well done.
lazs
-
Never fear.....help is on the way.
This is why they can draw all the conclusions, make all the graphs, predictions, etc. to their hearts content and they still don`t mean beans in the scheme of things. Too many things that can`t be predicted long term and are not factored in.
Mother nature has a mind of her own and does not really dig scientists. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" Alaska volcano is poised to erupt
By JAMES HALPIN, Associated Press Writer Thu Aug 16, 8:53 PM ET
ANCHORAGE, Alaska - One of Alaska's most active volcanoes could be working toward a massive eruption that could affect air travel but was not expected to threaten any of the towns in the area, scientists said Thursday.
ADVERTISEMENT
Satellite images of Pavlof Volcano taken Thursday showed strong thermal readings, consistent with what the Alaska Volcano Observatory is calling a "vigorous eruption of lava" at the volcano about 590 miles southwest of Anchorage on the Alaska Peninsula.
The volcano is below the path of hundreds of daily international flight paths, and an explosive eruption could interrupt those operations, said Steve McNutt, a volcano seismologist with the observatory. Volcanic ash can enter an engine and make it seize up, he said.
The Federal Aviation Administration sent advisories to airlines that might be operating in the area and is monitoring the situation, said spokesman Allen Kenitzer. If there is a severe eruption, flights would have to be diverted, possibly resulting in delays, he said.
McNutt said seismic activity is high at the 8,262-foot volcano, with about one tremor recorded every minute. Lahars — mudslides caused when lava melts snow on the peak — have triggered some seismic activity, as well, he said.
The mudslides took place on the southeast side of the volcano, an area he said is inhabited by few, if any, people. Pavlof is about nine miles from Pavlof Bay, a popular fishing ground, but at the moment it isn't posing an immediate threat, McNutt said.
He said hazards the volcano could present included light ash fall on nearby communities, mud flows, lava flows and hot debris avalanching on the volcano's flanks.
Several small towns are in the area, including King Cove, which is about 35 miles to the southwest with a population of roughly 800, and Cold Bay, nearly 40 miles southwest with a population of about 90. But they're too far to be affected by lava, and McNutt said an eruption probably would coat the towns with no more than a 2- or 3-millimeter-thick blanket of ash.
Josh Gould, co-owner of King Cove grocer John Gould & Sons Co. Inc., said people in town were preparing for the worst while hoping for the best. Sales of basic staples are up, he said, but there's no danger of running out of products like water, bread and milk.
He said that an ash plume was visible from town, but that none was falling on it yet.
Seismic activity was first picked up at the volcano Tuesday. Eyewitnesses aboard a fishing boat in the area Wednesday reported glowing lava on the volcano's southeast flank. Pilots have reported a weak plume of ash drifting 5 miles to the southwest and likely below 20,000 feet.
"What we think we're in for is several months of low-level eruptions punctuated by a few large and explosive events," McNutt said.
Pavlof, which has had about 40 eruptions since record keeping began in the area in the 1760s, is among the most closely monitored volcanoes in the state, with permanent monitoring equipment installed nearby.
Its last eruption was in 1996; that 11-year span is the longest Pavlof has gone without an event, McNutt said. A string of eruptions took place during the 1970s and 1980s.
A series of ash explosions and lava eruptions took place for several months after the last eruption. Ash clouds reached as high as 30,000 feet at the time. During a 1986 eruption, Pavlof spewed ash as high as 49,000 feet."
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so what are they finding in the south pole? It is 90% of all the ice in the world.
that would be.... 90%. as in... everything really.
It is getting thicker... warmer temps for the rest of the planet will increase the ice because snow will be added.
meanwhile... in the US here.. we are enjoying great summers and mild winters with satalite data... you know.. real data.. showing no change for the last 20 years.
Hopefully.. the trend will continue a bit before it goes back to the ice age. If man made pollution got us out of the ice age then we need to congradulate ourselves for a job well done.
lazs
The news from the S-Pole are...chillingly not so chilling....
I.E. Quite a lot of Ice breaking off.
Since the S-Pole ice is mostly on dry land, and the mass is very much indeed, there are 2 things to consider.
1. Changes happen slowr than on N-Pole.
2. Changes have a lot more effect.
So, in short, the N-Pole will tell you sooner and a lot clearer what is happening. Since it has been there for some 20 million years, and suddenly melts away, well, what does that say?
-
Time is the root of all our problems. Without it nothing would heat up and melt. Some say time is but an illusion created from our linear nature and persepctive, therefore it must be man made. Ban time and all will be well. You heard it here first.
-
Well, a record-speed melting Polar cap is a thing with quite some gravity. No illusion at all.
Not like the illution of the people that hotly debated that one some year ago on this board.
-
A shorter trade route through the north is good, yes? That's a definite positive. The negative is purely speculative. We're gonna wait and see what happens on this global warming thing no matter how many alarms are sounded short of an imminent calamity without concrete evidence, or so I believe.
-
Polar trade route is good yes. Melting bogs tied up in the Siberian permafrost is however bad.
-
well.. I would say that both sides will get a compromise.
there is a lot less hysteria about it nowdays... some money will be wasted on carbon bs here and there... the politicians will make a show of it while looking at the polls that all say people aren't willing to spend any real money on the whole thing.
progress will be slowed a little... some marginal scientists will get worthless grants... some of us may feel a little pinch when some minor restrictions on the things we use happen.
In the end... a few years from now... people will realize that..
It isn't getting hotter... not much anyway... it may even be getting fractionally cooler.. the suns activity may continue to slow and then we can all worry about "man made global cooling"
once this crop of dummy citizens forgets about the whole man made global warming scare that is.
there is no new con under the sun.. we just dredge up old ones and play em to a new audience of gullible marks.
lazs
-
nature is taking it's course?
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57253
we are coming out of a mini-ice age?
or is it?
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/News_By_Industry/Energy/Power/Buddhadeb_blames_US_for_global_warming/articleshow/2296281.cms
-
That comment comes from Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, who said the temperature of the earth is increasing, but that it's got nothing to do with what man is doing.
Bryson is obviously an Exxon stooge, prostituting himself for Carbon dollars. He and anyone else who does not toe the party line.
-
It's oil company propaganda.
-
Gosh! What a surprise. Lazs and the rest of us evil Global Warming Deniers sure never saw this one coming.:rolleyes:
How much more before the public get's the picture?
-
So, if my memory serves correctly, Lazs post that started global warming debate was along the lines of: Weak Hurricane Season, global warming must not be real. Well, let's see, Cat. 5 hurricane? Powerfull hurricanes that used to occur not very often, now several in one decade...... nope, global warming is good, we need more powerfull hurricanes occuring more often, hotter summers, non-existant winters, drier, more frequent droughts, larger deserts, crazy weather patterns. At least according to Lazs and "his ilk". It will help grow more crops.
-
Oh, thank GOD! McPodunk is here to continue espousing global warming climate change! No doubt bringing the eternal knowledge with which his "Papaw" has endowed him. Well, what kind of scientist are you today, Mc Farceland? Is it going to rain cats and snakes?:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by FBBone
Oh, thank GOD! McPodunk is here to continue espousing global warming climate change! No doubt bringing the eternal knowledge with which his "Papaw" has endowed him. Well, what kind of scientist are you today, Mc Farceland? Is it going to rain cats and snakes?:rolleyes:
:rofl
Well hey...........at least I was prepared for this one.
Lately when I see a McFarseland post I automaticaly just get up and get the Windex and paper towels. Yaknow you`re going to need them. :)
-
Well, now let me see, he was right about Lazs's thing and the Hurricane.
Guess Lazs was chuckling too early.
-
sooo... "worst hurricane season ever" now means one hurricane that is a big one?
comeon... a little honesty here guys.
Look at the math.. It just doesn't add up. even the most rabid and dishonest are backing off of co2 now.
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
You won't get real numbers from the environmentalists or the lefty sites... try it if you don't believe me... just "we know" and maybe tons of co2 (meaningless) and all sorts of things that don't explain a thing co2 wise.
"Putting it all together:
total human greenhouse gas contributions
add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect.
5. To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below.
TABLE 4a.
Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED) Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics % of All Greenhouse Gases
% Natural
% Man-made
Water vapor 95.000% 94.999%
0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618% 3.502%
0.117%
Methane (CH4) 0.360% 0.294%
0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950% 0.903%
0.047%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.072% 0.025%
0.047%
Total 100.00% 99.72
0.28% "
now.. that is our "contribution" 0.28%... of all greenhouse gas... about half that if you weigh them by their significance but take the high figure..
Now.... take the sun and the earths rotation and sea floor spreading and such... say that they are "only" 50-75% of all warming.. you are left with our contribution as being like 0.28% of a 50% (low end) total!
not only that but... even if we went crazy and reduced this nothing by another nothing (30%) we would not even be able to measure the difference.
We would cripple mankind over an infintesimal reduction... perhaps a tenth of a degree in a century... likely less.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
Well, now let me see, he was right about Lazs's thing and the Hurricane.
Guess Lazs was chuckling too early.
He was? I'd argue that. Even if he were though, a stopped clock is correct twice a day too. Doesn't mean I'd rely on it.
-
Well, global warming, from any cause, should cause more hurricanes. Maybe wiser to count them decadewise rather than seasonwise though. But remember that the cause for hurricanes is seawater which reaches a certain temperature in a large enough area, - and since the sea is warming then yes.
Predictions go as fas as hurricanes starting to happen in the med.
It's not even rocket science.
-
Wasn't there an article a month or two that tried to explain why all the predictions last year of a dire hurricane season because of global warming didn't come true? I think I remember it saying that it was because of global warming that we didn't have a bad season after all. So, first it was "Because of GW, 2006 will be a devastating hurricane season." When it turned out to be a dud, GW was again the answer.
"A theory that explains everything explains nothing." By the way, Dean was not the most severe Hurricane in history, either windspeed-wise or barrometric pressure-wise. That, I believe, was back in the early 1900s. What do you suppose they blaimed that one on?
-
The tree huggers are gonna be coming after ya.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294032,00.html
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294032,00.html
Expect to see Al Gore calling for the complete eradication of Moose
-
It's OK, they can do that. They are all investing in green credits with al gore's corporations.
-
Cool! Now, if Norway has a special Moose tag, I can book a hunting trip, kill a moose, feed my family, and I've felt as though I've done my part for global warming! :aok
-
I really dont understand the though-process behind the desicion to print that article.
1) Methane is more harmful to the environment than CO2.
2) All (I think all, at least all air-breathers with an internal digestive system) living creatures release methane into the atmosphere.
3) Yes?
The anti-environment crowd is really getting desperate these days it seems. This looks like yet another attempt to divert attention from the problem of gobal warming by making another pointless braindead statement.
I shall expect lasz in here within the hour to join the retarded choire currently headed by Ripsnort apparently.
-
The evidence continues to mount...Especially interesting is the new study on the global impact of biofuel (Hint: It ain't gonna save us)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293998,00.html
Man-Made Global Warming Links Challenged
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
By Brit Hume
Done Deal?
Many media outlets — such as the recent Newsweek magazine cover story — portray man-made global warming as fact and those who deny it as conspirators. But skeptics are increasingly certain that the scare is vastly overblown.
A new study by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz contends that the Earth's climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the United Nations' recent climate study claims. Schwarz's work will be published in The Journal of Geophysical Eesearch.
The study is just one of several peer-reviewed scientific studies challenging global warming alarmism:
The Belgian Weather Institute concludes that carbon dioxide does not have a decisive role in global warming.
A study by two Chinese scientists says CO2's role in warming is "vastly exaggerated."
And new research by University of Washington mathematicians shows a correlation between high solar activity and periods of warming.
Meanwhile, what is billed as the first comprehensive analysis of global biofuel impact has concluded that their use may release between two and nine times more carbon gases than fossil fuels.
The study published in the journal Science says the clearing of forest land to grow biofuel crops will produce immediate carbon gas releases and also destroy habitats, wildlife and jobs. It says that while biofuels look good from a Western perspective, they will be harmful on a global scale. The study contends it will take about 40 percent of American and European agricultural land to grow enough biofuel crops to replace only 10 percent of fossil fuel use.
-
Your thread actually came out first but the other one already has responses posted about the same thing.
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=213211
-
FYI, Biofuel relies on complete energy recycling rather than extracting old fossile fuels from hundreds of millions of years ago.
And as for the moose etc. hahaha. happy day.
It's not a moose concern, it's not a polar bear concern, it is the concern of our terra firma not turning into a Venus-toaster with record speed
:mad:
And he would like it, I guess....(for the religious ones)...:
:t
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I really dont understand the though-process behind the desicion to print that article.
though-process?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Well, now let me see, he was right about Lazs's thing and the Hurricane.
Guess Lazs was chuckling too early.
I stubbed my toe yesterday.
I guess I can look for a very severe toe stubbing season, huh?
-
Originally posted by Angus
FYI, Biofuel relies on complete energy recycling rather than extracting old fossile fuels from hundreds of millions of years ago.
And as for the moose etc. hahaha. happy day.
It's not a moose concern, it's not a polar bear concern, it is the concern of our terra firma not turning into a Venus-toaster with record speed
:mad:
And he would like it, I guess....(for the religious ones)...:
:t
Angus, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Hasn't Biofuel been pushed as one way to reduce CO2-induced global warming? It is certainly uttered often enough by those calling for "going green". And what about these other studies? Are you so commited to the dogma of the Church of GW that no amount of contrary evidence will shake your faith?
Look, if global warming is not man-made, shouldn't we think about turning all that harnessed "save the planet" energy towards problems we face that we can truly impact? Poverty, underdeveloped nations, malaria, HIV come to mind.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Angus, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Hasn't Biofuel been pushed as one way to reduce CO2-induced global warming? It is certainly uttered often enough by those calling for "going green". And what about these other studies? Are you so commited to the dogma of the Church of GW that no amount of contrary evidence will shake your faith?
Look, if global warming is not man-made, shouldn't we think about turning all that harnessed "save the planet" energy towards problems we face that we can truly impact? Poverty, underdeveloped nations, malaria, HIV come to mind.
The point is that Biofuel is probably enoughto sustain about our population on earth, while keeping on trucking in the fosil business is either : A) going to send us down crasching into an energy crisis in some decades or :B) sending us to the toastmaster. Who the devil might he be anyway.
The whole concept of biofuel is the same of solar panels, and in some or many places the solar panel is more effective. It's energy that won't ADD emissions of CO2 for instance. Equilibritum.
And if we go "cookie", all malarian problems together with aids are no concern any more. Anyway, those are another categorie. Sad though, but true.
-
Originally posted by Angus
The point is that Biofuel is probably enoughto sustain about our population on earth, while keeping on trucking in the fosil business is either : A) going to send us down crasching into an energy crisis in some decades or :B) sending us to the toastmaster. Who the devil might he be anyway.
The whole concept of biofuel is the same of solar panels, and in some or many places the solar panel is more effective. It's energy that won't ADD emissions of CO2 for instance. Equilibritum.
And if we go "cookie", all malarian problems together with aids are no concern any more. Anyway, those are another categorie. Sad though, but true.
Dude, did you even read the following from the article I posted above?
From the article:
Meanwhile, what is billed as the first comprehensive analysis of global biofuel impact has concluded that their use may release between two and nine times more carbon gases than fossil fuels.
The study published in the journal Science says the clearing of forest land to grow biofuel crops will produce immediate carbon gas releases and also destroy habitats, wildlife and jobs. It says that while biofuels look good from a Western perspective, they will be harmful on a global scale. The study contends it will take about 40 percent of American and European agricultural land to grow enough biofuel crops to replace only 10 percent of fossil fuel use.
Emphasis mine
As for solar power, I'm an electrical engineer who deals with solar powered systems, and I can tell you with absolute confidence that there's no way solar can make a dent even as large as biofuel (which is not much of a dent) in replacing fosil fuel, and for too many reasons for me to list here. Nuclear power is the only current technology that has the potential to do that.
And again I ask, what about these other studies? They basically say that even if we completely eliminated man-made CO2, it would have no appreciable impact on global climate.
-
The only good solution is nuclear, even if people are irrationally scared of it.
Renewable energy isn't even green. It would take almost 800 square kilometers of solar panels to match a single nuclear reactor. Wind farms take 5x more resources to build to get the same output as a reactor built 40 years ago. Last I read, it was over 2,500 square km to produce enough biofuel to match a single reactor.
-
The prairie states of the USA has more than enough wind power resource to power the domestic grid. It could replace all the electrical generation plants: Nuclear , Coal, Hydro, Gas, Oil
If only people lived where the wind is and used power when the wind blew.
As for cost, the resource if free... no fuel cost, no miners coughing up lungs, no radiation, no carbon...
Cost of energy if the turbine lasts 20 yrs is as low as a nickle a kwhr at the base of the turbine.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sooo... "worst hurricane season ever" now means one hurricane that is a big one?
comeon... a little honesty here guys.
Look at the math.. It just doesn't add up. even the most rabid and dishonest are backing off of co2 now.
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
You won't get real numbers from the environmentalists or the lefty sites... try it if you don't believe me... just "we know" and maybe tons of co2 (meaningless) and all sorts of things that don't explain a thing co2 wise.
lazs
Let's talk numbers then - what are the radiative forcing values for water vapour, and how do they compare to the forcing values of other trace greenhouse gasses?
Furthermore, why is water vapour not included in the IPCC forcing charts?
(http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/0/07/IPCC_Radiative_Forcings.gif)
-
Originally posted by AKH
Furthermore, why is water vapour not included in the IPCC forcing charts?
Water vapo(u)r is by far the biggest GW gas in the atmosphrere, but since 70% of the surface of the earth is a water vapor producer, there is no way man could ever hope to come close to the predominant water vapor producer.
The reason the IPCC left out water vapor is because they are intrested in man caused change. So they produce a model that focuses on the result they expect. The antithesis of good science.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The prairie states of the USA has more than enough wind power resource to power the domestic grid. It could replace all the electrical generation plants: Nuclear , Coal, Hydro, Gas, Oil
If only people lived where the wind is and used power when the wind blew.
As for cost, the resource if free... no fuel cost, no miners coughing up lungs, no radiation, no carbon...
Cost of energy if the turbine lasts 20 yrs is as low as a nickle a kwhr at the base of the turbine.
Well, convince the people of Conneticut to let New York go ahead and bulldoze their state. You'd need that much space to power NYC.
Again, right now, it would take 5-10x the resources to create a wind farm that could match a single nuclear plant made in the 1970s. It's a far more economical solution with far less environmental damage.
-
exactly hoopy... you have been conned if you are looking at any greenhouse effect model that does not include water vapor.
If you have read any article I have linked you would see that water vapor is 95% of all the greenhouse effect. This is by contribution.. it is slightly higher if you go by percent alone.
for instance... methane has a larger effect than it's sheer volume suggests.
Don't you wonder why they never give the math?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The prairie states of the USA has more than enough wind power resource to power the domestic grid. It could replace all the electrical generation plants: Nuclear , Coal, Hydro, Gas, Oil
If only people lived where the wind is and used power when the wind blew.
As for cost, the resource if free... no fuel cost, no miners coughing up lungs, no radiation, no carbon...
Cost of energy if the turbine lasts 20 yrs is as low as a nickle a kwhr at the base of the turbine.
Got a source for this, HM? Any info on the cost or efficiency of wind power? The fact is, wind power is an incredibly poor way to produce reliable commercial power, is incredibly damaging to the environment, takes up huge volumes of land, and only very specific locations are suitable to it. Like solar power, it's potential has been wildly over stated. Again, nuclear is the only technology that offers hope of significantly reducing our dependence on fossil resources. If the USA pushed to convert even 80% of electrical power generation to nuclear, it would end our dependence on foreign sources of energy.
-
saber... I do believe that solar will be a viable way to reduce to little or nothing the domestic electric bill in the very near future... we are very close with many homes in kalifornia doing so.. the cost keeps coming down too..
lazs
-
Sabre, "DUDE", do you understand your own post? Or the concept at all?
Bio fuel, running the bio fuel industry on bio fuel alone, gives a product of foods and fuel. It even works as far up as Iceland, and is now in great use incountries that have some land to spare or basically the economical setup for it.
And the rest of you, - what do you think increased temp numbers have on the amount of water vapour?
-
And Sabre, to explain myself:
"Meanwhile, what is billed as the first comprehensive analysis of global biofuel impact has concluded that their use may release between two and nine times more carbon gases than fossil fuels.
The study published in the journal Science says the clearing of forest land to grow biofuel crops will produce immediate carbon gas releases and also destroy habitats, wildlife and jobs. It says that while biofuels look good from a Western perspective, they will be harmful on a global scale. The study contends it will take about 40 percent of American and European agricultural land to grow enough biofuel crops to replace only 10 percent of fossil fuel use."
Total crap. One study, and holds less water than a leaky cauldron.
Probably that,,,,,certain reportreferred to again.
And what's better anyway? To pump out the fossils until there's nothing left cheaper than biofuel ?
-
No, it's because water vapour is a positive, limited feedback mechanism, not a forcing mechanism. That's a subtle, but fundamentally important, difference.
While water vapour is indeed the most important greenhouse gas, the issue that makes it a feedback (rather than a forcing) is the relatively short residence time for water in the atmosphere (around 10 days). Compared to the residence time for perturbations to CO2 (decades to centuries) or CH4 (a decade), this is a really short time.
Water vapour is a "reactive" GHG with a short atmospheric lifetime of about 1 week. If you pump out a whole load of extra water vapour it won't stay in the atmosphere; it would condense as rain/snow and we'd be back to where we started. If you sucked the atmosphere dry of moisture, more would evaporate from the oceans. The balance is dynamic of course: humidity of the air varies by place and time, but its a stable balance.
http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/01/water-vapour-is-not-dominant.html
This is not the case for CO2 and other trace greenhouse gases. These accumulate over time, with their effects increasing.
Climate models do incorporate water vapour - correctly modelled as a feedback mechanism, not a forcing.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
saber... I do believe that solar will be a viable way to reduce to little or nothing the domestic electric bill in the very near future... we are very close with many homes in kalifornia doing so.. the cost keeps coming down too..
lazs
As of January 2007 California had just over 23,000 rooftop solar systems. And that's with California paying for more than half the cost of the systems (i.e. tax payers). These systems do not replace grid power, only reduce dependence on it. Not all homes or locations are suitable for it, either. Plus, manufactoring them produces environmental costs of it's own. It's not a total or even partial solution.
And Angus, your reaction to any study that runs counter to your religious- like devotion to MMGW is nothing short of astounding. I can see now that you're not interested in any truth but your own.
-
Originally posted by indy007
Well, convince the people of Conneticut to let New York go ahead and bulldoze their state. You'd need that much space to power NYC.
Again, right now, it would take 5-10x the resources to create a wind farm that could match a single nuclear plant made in the 1970s. It's a far more economical solution with far less environmental damage.
Just a few thoughts about your rebuttal:
Wind farms do little if any environmental damage.
Cornfields make good wind farms and farmers can sell crops and electricity.
Offshore wind farms do not need bulldozers.
Connecticut is not usually considered as one of the prairie states.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Got a source for this, HM? Any info on the cost or efficiency of wind power? The fact is, wind power is an incredibly poor way to produce reliable commercial power, is incredibly damaging to the environment, takes up huge volumes of land, and only very specific locations are suitable to it.
The company I work for has 600MW installed thermal power (Nat Gas fired SW 501 Gas Turbines) and about 1500 MW installed wind turbines in the United States. (We are making a profit on wind and will install another 2000 MW in the next couple years)
All our wind projects are leased from land owners who grow crops or graze livestock among the turbines. (No land use loss there... okay maybe 2% land loss for roads to the turbines)
Environmental damage is.... CO2? no... Salmon Migration... no... Acid Rain.. no Bird Strikes! Bird Strikes! That's it! it kills raptors!
Bird strikes are a phenomenon on older lattice towers which encouraged bird nesting and perching, and these older turbies had fast rpm turbines, both problems have been addressed with cantilever towers and slow blades of the 1 to 1.5 MW turbines.
So bird strikes is not an issue anymore.
Special installation areas:
(http://www.energy.iastate.edu/renewable/wind/images/windmap-iowa_annual.gif)
Average wind speeds of 12 mph or better are looked for in turbine siting. That lets out about 3% of Iowa. The lite purple stuff along the Mississippi.
All that green and yellow area in the top half of Iowa is ripe for the picking.
And a farm of 100 turbines producing up to 150 to 200 MW employs maybe 10 people.
One of the guys I work with use to work at a Nuke in Mo that produced 800 MW and employed about 600 ppl. so much for the cost of nuke.
-
Here's a good resource for info (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41435.pdf)
-
I didn't make this up guys.....funny skandinavians.....hehehehe
Der Spiegel: "'Norway's Moose Population in Trouble for Belching.'
The poor old Scandinavian moose is now being blamed for climate change, with researchers in Norway claiming that a grown moose can produce 2,100 kilos of carbon dioxide a year -- equivalent to the CO2 output resulting from a 13,000 kilometer car journey. Norway is concerned that its national animal, the moose, is harming the climate by emitting an estimated 2,100 kilos of carbon dioxide a year through its belching and farting. Norwegian newspapers, citing research from Norway's technical university, said a motorist would have to drive 13,000 kilometers in a car to emit as much CO2 as a moose does in a year."
So will the Norwegion Moose be sacraficed on the high alter of "Global Warming"?
I suppose if it can be proven having a baby causes global warming the high preists of the religion will want our newborns aborted to save the planet.....stranger things have been happening over global warming.........:confused:
-
The scam is loosing air at the rate of a Dick Cepek after running over on a railroad spike.
There will always be some who will refuse to remove the plastic Al Gore statue from the dashboard.
-
akh... nice slight of hand...
What you say is true... we don't increase water vapor nor can it past the 95% figure but... that figure is correct.. the contribution to greenhouse gas is 95% water vapor. our contribution to water vapor is barely measurable.
Sure.. we can add to co2 and methane and cfc and a lot of things but... our contribution will always be dwarfed... a speck.. compared to water vapor that we can't do anything about... our contribution to global warming through co2 will always be dwarfed.. a spec.. compared to the suns activity and the tilt of the earth and the spreading of the sea floor.
If you leave water vapor out of the greenhouse effect then your dishonest agenda is apparent.
Look at the sites...google em on co2 and global warming... thousands of alarmist and "the end is nigh" sites... lots of em from scientists... but... try to find the hard data. the math...
It isn't there except in the relatively few "man made co2 is not killing us" sites.
that is why any debate... where there is freedom... like this one will end up with the co2 as a cause of global warming advocates losing.. they have no real allies... no real proof in all of those thousands of sites.... just misdirection and "what will it hurt to do it?" or "just because we can't prove it is no reason to not let us run the world over it"
They use math and science terms like "significant" and "probably" and "most agree" and then point to flawed computer models and greenhouse gas charts that show no water vapor.... that ignore 95% of the contribution...
On the sidelines.. the adds of these sites... tell you what you can do to save us from this threat tho..
Show me the math... show me the math behind the threat and the math behind the solution.
so far... it only looks like we are in a warming period.. a time that has always been the best for man... crops are producing more than ever and the ocean is not and will not rise 30 feet next year... NPR was telling me only last year about how many millions would die when the oceans rose 30' in the next few decades.... no one called in and told em they were a joke!
Tell the lie.. tell it big enough till it is accepted and then say..."well.. we all agree.. now it is time to do something about it."
These discussions are healthy... I am sure that many who started out thinking that co2 was causing the end of the world have gone to the google to get the data to prove what an idiot I am and come away going "damn... there is nothing there. just gibberish"
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
. I am sure that many who started out thinking that co2 was causing the end of the world have gone to the google to get the data to prove what an idiot I am and come away going "damn... there is nothing there. just gibberish"
lazs
Not to mention being very entertaining watching them blow a fuze, trying to 'discuss' it with you....
:rofl
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Show me the math... show me the math behind the threat and the math behind the solution.
It is quite pointless since you are incapable of understanding "the math behind the threat".
All you do in these discussions is to repeat the latest talking points you grabbed from some anti-environment site and then repeat it until everyone else realizes the pointlessness of trying to talk to you and leave the thread. Then you think you won the discussion. Its like trying to argue with a retarded 7yrold with ADHD.
-
well of course.. but... if I am simply repeating flawed science then it should be childs play to tear down the math.
To simply say that the people who do the real math are anti environmentalists is not really getting to the meat of the thing ya know?
If I were to take the side of the chicken littles tho... that man was causing the planet to heat up and melt all the ice and drown us all.
I would dump the co2 thing. it is pretty indefensible.
I would take smaller steps... pollution is bad.. co2 is not pollution but many things tied to it are. the way it is produced. work on that...
I would try to keep the hysteria and exaggeration and threats out of it and I would refrain from... as was said... "blowing a fuse"
I would also ignore any ally that did so. If their site was evasive or shunned the math... I would ignore it or only take the things that they showed the math on.
Things change... as new proof or new science comes out we need to look at it but... we can't ignore the new stuff cause we are married to flawed ideas.
I may even end up saying IT'S NOT THE SUN STUPID ITS THE TILT but.. no matter what.. the sun does play a 25-60% part in global temps... way more than anything we could ever do with what we have now. Those are not my estimates either... they are the "environmentalists" denial of the sun. "only 25% or so" they say... at the low figure.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
The scam is loosing air at the rate of a Dick Cepek after running over on a railroad spike.
There will always be some who will refuse to remove the plastic Al Gore statue from the dashboard.
The dashboard? Try their bellybutton along with their heads lol:rofl
-
Sabre:
"And Angus, your reaction to any study that runs counter to your religious- like devotion to MMGW is nothing short of astounding. I can see now that you're not interested in any truth but your own."
Firstly, I'd say that my belive is "Human influenced global warming". And call it a truth of my own, but I think it is just silly to belive there is nothing that we do to influence global warming.
That brings up the primary point, or previous point, being debated on this forum not long ago, whether there is any warming at all.
Now, suddenly that seems to have fallen into the shade, but the same characters that refused to identify global warming, then mocked the effect, are now debating if the humans have nothing to do with it, while even opposing alernative means of getting energy.
Sorry if my responces are strong, but I think this setup calles for it.
Where is the debate going to go next? Oh, yes, So, global warming is man made- partially - butit's nothing to be done?
And HoldenMcGroin, - you're in the windfarm business????????????????
All ears.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I would dump the co2 thing. it is pretty indefensible.
CO2 is not relevant to global warming now?
I must have missed some of your arguments relating to this part of your delusions. If you were any other poster I would ask what the hell you are talking about, but I realize the futility of such an endeavor with you, so I shall just shake my head in your general direction and move on.
-
yep... lots of "of course it is true"
but real shy on proof.
hortlund.. good thing you didn't read the whole thread... you will find that there is no source that gives the math to prove man made global warming exists or that man made co2 is causing any warming.
angus... yeah.. I think it is quite possible that people will next be saying that sure... man affects everything but not enough to matter in the global warming via co2 boogeyman scare.
That is perfectly reasonable and... it is nothing more than I have been saying from the beginning but....
If you want to say radically changing opinions... simply look at your friends in the MMGW religion... every month it seems that they are having to retract some wild claim or another.... 30' rise in the oceans! co2 causing 5 degrees of rise in global average temp by 2050! all bs. They have even claimed at one time that co2 doesn't help plant growth.
It must be embarrasing trying to find something solid in the thousands of websites saying that MMGW is real.
You do agree that 99.7% or so off all the "greenhouse effect" is perfectly natural and has nothing to do with man tho don't you?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
hortlund.. good thing you didn't read the whole thread...
If you have been posting alot in it, I agree.
you will find that there is no source that gives the math to prove man made global warming exists or that man made co2 is causing any warming.
Actually what I will find is more desperate "putting heads into sand"-attempts by the anti-environment crowd.
Judging from this post of yours, I can see that your (ie the anti-environment crowd) position has been pushed back even further. Its no longer "there is no proof of global warming", instead we get "there is no proof of man-made global warming".
This is really simple. We know that CO2 contributes to global warming thanks to the greenhouse effect. There is a very clear correlation between CO2 in atmosphere and temperature. Even a child understands this. We also know that we are putting huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. To put it in terms that even a retard should understand, there is more CO2 in the atmosphere thanks to man, than there would have been without man.
Clearly the result combination of the facts above are too complicated for you to understand. Which really makes any sort of discussion with you on the subject quite pointless.
Its equally simple as the hurricane-argument we had before. You remember that one right? The one where I asked you if there were any predictions to be made from the following facts
1. Surface temperature of ocean influences hurricane strength.
2. Ocean is getting warmer thanks to global warming.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
If you have been posting alot in it, I agree.
Actually what I will find is more desperate "putting heads into sand"-attempts by the anti-environment crowd.
Judging from this post of yours, I can see that your (ie the anti-environment crowd) position has been pushed back even further. Its no longer "there is no proof of global warming", instead we get "there is no proof of man-made global warming".
This is really simple. We know that CO2 contributes to global warming thanks to the greenhouse effect. There is a very clear correlation between CO2 in atmosphere and temperature. Even a child understands this. We also know that we are putting huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. To put it in terms that even a retard should understand, there is more CO2 in the atmosphere thanks to man, than there would have been without man.
Clearly the result combination of the facts above are too complicated for you to understand. Which really makes any sort of discussion with you on the subject quite pointless.
Its equally simple as the hurricane-argument we had before. You remember that one right? The one where I asked you if there were any predictions to be made from the following facts
1. Surface temperature of ocean influences hurricane strength.
2. Ocean is getting warmer thanks to global warming.
I love guys like this. If you disagree with them, you are either:
1. Stupid
2. Retarded
3. "Anti-environment"
Really, if you have to resort to petty name calling to further your argument, your argument itself might be flawed.
Also, I have yet to meet someone who is "anti-environment", someone who has said; "Well, F*** the environment!". Nobody I've met, people Hortland would call "anti-environment", wants to destroy the environment, even if we could. Furthermore, until you return to the tribal caveman way of life, you don't have any business saying anyone is "anti-environment".
Maybe Hortland would just be happy if we all continued to deny 3rd world countries the simple and sometimes life saving amenities he likely enjoys daily. Things like electricity, which makes possible heat, refrigeration, light......(use any of these things lately, Hortland?). Things that the "environmentalist" elite don't want them burning coal to generate electricity for.
We'll all just keep the pressure on the African countries to keep; heating their houses (huts) by burning dung and wood (how many greenhouse gases and health problems result from this kind of open burning?), drinking untreated water, living with poor to non-existent medical care.
Meanwhile, we'll continue with coal fired plants that are too few in number and in some cases in poor repair (leading to inefficiency). Or perhaps force wind turbines and solar panels (both grossly inefficient for their relative size) on areas that don't want them and would favor a nuclear plant.
We shall continue to deny that our choices, nay, DEMANDS for the rest of the world have any negative impact whatsoever on their lives, after all it's for their own good (their too stupid to realize this, you see) and we wouldn't want them to hurt themselves.
Then, and only then, can we all be "Pro-environment".:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
It's no longer "there is no proof of global warming", instead we get "there is no proof of man-made global warming".
Anyone who said, "there is no proof of global warming" is a ice age denier.
There is a scientific consensus that woolly mammoths existed during an ice age some 40,000 yrs ago, The Great Lakes and Hudson Bay were carved out by a huge ice sheet that covered most of present day Canada. Then the climate warmed with no help from an industrialized society.
I think the argument has always been that the data are within natural fluctuation of the natural system and can naturally, be explained naturally.
-
Laz
Would this be the source of your data?
http://www.nrsp.com/CG_PDFs/CG-04-04a-5001.pdf (http://www.nrsp.com/CG_PDFs/CG-04-04a-5001.pdf)
-
Originally posted by FBBone
I love guys like this. If you disagree with them, you are either:
1. Stupid
2. Retarded
3. "Anti-environment"
Really, if you have to resort to petty name calling to further your argument, your argument itself might be flawed.
Also, I have yet to meet someone who is "anti-environment", someone who has said; "Well, F*** the environment!". Nobody I've met, people Hortland would call "anti-environment", wants to destroy the environment, even if we could. Furthermore, until you return to the tribal caveman way of life, you don't have any business saying anyone is "anti-environment".
Maybe Hortland would just be happy if we all continued to deny 3rd world countries the simple and sometimes life saving amenities he likely enjoys daily. Things like electricity, which makes possible heat, refrigeration, light......(use any of these things lately, Hortland?). Things that the "environmentalist" elite don't want them burning coal to generate electricity for.
We'll all just keep the pressure on the African countries to keep; heating their houses (huts) by burning dung and wood (how many greenhouse gases and health problems result from this kind of open burning?), drinking untreated water, living with poor to non-existent medical care.
Meanwhile, we'll continue with coal fired plants that are too few in number and in some cases in poor repair (leading to inefficiency). Or perhaps force wind turbines and solar panels (both grossly inefficient for their relative size) on areas that don't want them and would favor a nuclear plant.
We shall continue to deny that our choices, nay, DEMANDS for the rest of the world have any negative impact whatsoever on their lives, after all it's for their own good (their too stupid to realize this, you see) and we wouldn't want them to hurt themselves.
Then, and only then, can we all be "Pro-environment".:rolleyes:
I think this post, combined with your inability to spell my name correctly puts you in the first category.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Anyone who said, "there is no proof of global warming" is a ice age denier.
There is a scientific consensus that woolly mammoths existed during an ice age some 40,000 yrs ago, The Great Lakes and Hudson Bay were carved out by a huge ice sheet that covered most of present day Canada. Then the climate warmed with no help from an industrialized society.
I think the argument has always been that the data are within natural fluctuation of the natural system and can naturally, be explained naturally.
I would go even further and say that anyone who says "there is no proof of global warming" is a complete idiot.
Having said that, I dont know what your experience is, but Ive come across guys who have tried to deny that there is any global warming going on. That was more common a couple of years ago though, and now they have been forced to retreat to the position that lasz is currently arguing.
-
akh.. I have read junk sciences site this one also
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
Fact is.. hortlund is correct.. the earth heats and cools... long before we ever got here... fortunately we are in a warming cycle. Who knows how much longer it will last.
Hortlund is correct that co2 is a greenhouse gas and that we are contributing to it and that greenhouse effect keeps us all from freezing to death.
But then... he goes a little astray... he claims that we are causing global warming with our co2 contribution
His math is "even a child knows this" Not real precise.
The real math is that if the greenhouse effect is causing even 50% of the warming... a figure that is accepted and on the high end of the scale but...say it is 50%
What is our contribution? any child knows (sorry) that 95% of the greenhouse effect is water vapor... of which...we have almost no affect.
of the other gases... co2 is the largest. Of that, we contribute about 0.11%.
of the others.. methane cfc etc... we contribute a little more for a total of all our contribution of about 0.28% total.
This is our contribution to everything that is not natural and is greenhouse... this assumes that greenhouse gas is driving warming more than any other natural event or even contributing even 50% to the warming.
taken simply it is saying that our contribution of 0.28% to greenhouse gas has pulled us out of an ice age!
If this is not the real math then help me out. I can find no math on any of the thousands of "sky is falling sites" that gives our real contribution.
To reduce our contribution (to greenhouse gas) by 30% is to reduce nothing by nothing for no reason. we can't even measure global temps by the tiny little amount that this reduction could cause at its best.
Tiny little increases or decreases in solar activity would dwarf such a change by us...
The whole universe is heating.. it is not from man made co2.
When the universe begins to cool it won't be because we raised gas prices by double at the pumps to give to government and their science lackies.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I think this post, combined with your inability to spell my name correctly puts you in the first category.
I'd say your inability to come up with a decent response, and your previous posts on the subject, would plant you firmly by my side.
-
hortlund... I do not think that anyone ever said that no warming was occuring.
What people were saying was that there was nothing unusual or dangerous going on.
I still believe that. You yourself point out that if the oceans were heating we would see increased hurricane activity. yet... we have seen decreased activity..
Real data from sats.. not the worthless weather stations shows that there has been no warming that can be measured in the last two decades in North America.
There may be but it is just not a big deal.
The oceans haven't risen.. we aren't drowning or burning up.. every single prediction about the effect of "MMGW" that you chicken littles have made...
you have backed down on. nothing bad is happening... if something bad does happen... why is it anyones fault? when has nature and the weather ever co operated and been "average"? never.
I may be wrong... I am not scientist. I just started looking into this a few years ago. but... I just can't find any data that supports co2... man made co2... being able to bring about any real global warming that anyone could measure.
Hell.... I haven't seen anything that says we can tell what the average temp of the globe is even.
I have not seen one predicition from your camp come true. I follow every link anyone sends me... I get models that don't have water vapor in em! can you imagine? greenhouse gas models that leave out water vapor? why would they do such a thing? unless... unless they simply wish to decieve.
I have watched scientists claim that the UN report was "cleaned up" to make it look worse than was said... I have seen petitions of 17000-19000 people with advanced degrees all saying just what I am getting out of the whole mess.
I see the alarmists hiding their agenda and what they want done... what a 30% reduction (of nothing) will really mean to the world and it's people.
To watch algores movie now... just a year later is to see how wrong they were then. almost nothing in his movie is true... never was but... now we know it.
lazs
-
did you actually watch al gore's movie lasz?
:confused:
-
The facts M`am. Nothing but the facts.
Wishing, hoping ..maybes, could bes, maybe nots, could not bes and IFs.
Doesn`t mean anything.
Nobody wants to look at the practical side of what they are saying needs to be and is going to be done. None of what has been offered up makes a fiddlers damn in hell. It ain`t gonna happen.
Once again...........Let`s just say, for instance, that a big crack down on industry pollution , etc. is actualy passed and put into effect....here/there/wherever. (That`s a fairy tale in itself, but for the sake of argument........)
There are small, starving places on the face of the earth that would gladly accept any industry, of any kind and not care what pollution, etc. was spewed forth. No regs. No stipulations. Just Come On Down...please. That`s reality.That`s exactly the places that major industry would end up in such circumstances . It`s all about the money. Pure and simple.
Another thing is , as has been said before, is most of the so called solutions, mostly to problems that don`t exist, are based on the magic theory of everything being in place to begin with to accomplish. Doesn`t work that way. There is no magic wand that enables anything to start at point C,D or E, etc. Everything has to begin with point A. Starting there, most of the solutions to fairy tale problems, that have been bitten into like a fat worm in front of a bass, would cause more of the same problem from the beginning than they would ever be able to overcome.
The only thing that will posssibly ever become from all of this , is it will cost you, me and everyone. That`s what is intended with the fairy tales to begin with.
It`s all about the money.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I still believe that. You yourself point out that if the oceans were heating we would see increased hurricane activity. yet... we have seen decreased activity..
No, what I am pointing out is that when the ocean gets warmer, we should see stronger hurricanes, not more hurricanes.
This just shows that you clearly lack the ability to understand what you are talking about.
-
Ahh the facts, yes, indeed :D
Lasz: You are twisting. You claim Hortlund linked the man-made global warming with anything a child knows. But what he said is this:
"This is really simple. We know that CO2 contributes to global warming thanks to the greenhouse effect. There is a very clear correlation between CO2 in atmosphere and temperature. Even a child understands this."
So please stay on track.
And here:
"hortlund... I do not think that anyone ever said that no warming was occuring."
Maybe you should browse your own posts.
And here:
"Real data from sats.. not the worthless weather stations shows that there has been no warming that can be measured in the last two decades in North America."
Ahhh, now you accept the humble sattelites as a source. Now firstly, N-America is not Global and secondly, sattelites show a global warming trend, notably nearer to the arctic areas. And thirdly you just stated this:
"I do not think that anyone ever said that no warming was occuring"
As I mentioned before.
Like an overpowered car stuck in a poddle.
I could go on forever, but this is enough for the receiving end's mind I think.
And Jackal, - I agree with you on one thing, - It's all about the money. Your post above, however, I would put very much otherwise.
I'd love to see you two guys taking Churchill's decisions in the beginning of WW2. Or even Neville Chamberlain's.
First, - you'd refuse there is a threat. There is no Hitler.
Then you'd say it's no need to confront him. He is not global.
Then you'd say it is a natural cause of things. (this is the step where you are now)
Then..what? Oh, Resisting is futile because there is no proof that anything you do will do anything.
Just wait a few steps.
-
angus... you need to pay attention... even a child does know that there is a correlation between greenhouse gases and temp. of which... co2 plays a tiny part. Of that... man plays an even smaller part...
here is where the "children" get off track.. that is in saying that co2 is a major driver of global temp... this is not true and the math does not bear it out.
the oceans are heating faster than the air.. the exact opposite of what should be happening in a co2 doomsday scenario.. it takes a huge increase in air temp to increase the ocean temp... not what we are seeing at all. The earths core heats the oceans.. probly by a shift in rotation.
http://www.nov55.com/cli.html
We are not poised on some 1% knife edge of global warming doomsday.
also.. it is the first 20% of co2 that absorbs most of the earths radiation of heat... a doubling does not double the effect.. each new doubling had a much less effect.
In short.. let's face it... we don't really understand all there is about global climate change but one thing is certain... the co2 math just doesn't add up...
No matter what has caused global climate change over the milleniums.. it has not been co2 and is not now.
As for denial of warming... what are you missing? I said that the planet heats and cools in cycles and that we are in a perfectly natural heating event... it is so small tho that two decades of data over north America are unable to detect it. far from the exaggerated claims of the alarmists.
but.. I agree with jackal.. when people see what the alarmists want to charge us for their theory... when it comes time to pay the bill... we will ignore them for the most part and it will just go away... 3rd world countries will ignore the alarmists even more than those who live in sweden and iceland and england.
also... who is being stupid and childish here? who is comparing this to hitler?
lazs
-
angus... probly too much information here and too many numbers and footnotes and reading but it does address the ocean thing...
http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html
jb... I will be as honest as I can... I really really tried to watch algores performance.... I have cable and caught bits and pieces of his act and snake oil show... it was difficult because much of what he said was pure emotion and obvious heart string tugging... compete with dieing children... I am sure it worked up a tear and rightious indignation in you but it gagged me.
Also... almost everything he said has since been proven to be either an exaggeration or an outright lie
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=d0235a70-33f1-45b3-803b-829b1b3542ef
but... I imagine that I have seen about 70% of his performance based on reading about the scams and recalling seeing them... doubt I missed anything important.
Have you seen "the great global warming hoax" that was on BBC? Much easier to watch... less pandering.... more humor. more facts.
lazs
-
Churchill???? WWII????????
Ooooooooooooooooo K. Step away from the pipe. :aok
:rofl
-
What pipe? Your pipeline okay?
Oh, you do not see a similarity of realizing and countering a problem? After all that's what the whole issue is about. So just keep merry and smile at yer pipe,I go to bed after a cup of camomille tea.
:D
p.s. Organic. My own weed.
-
Oh, Lazs:
I have seen the Gore thing. This spring, I belive in April it was.
Saw it in bits, and was not so impressed. But still, and shocked as a result.
After all, he did point out some shocking FACTS, which he prefers to name "an inconvenience truth".
As for the "any child knows that", you have roped yer ankle.
-
Originally posted by JB88
did you actually watch al gore's movie lasz?
:confused:
I have and it was awful. Fully one of the worst things I have forced myself to sit through and I sat through that crappy Ang lee career ender, the Hulk.
It was like 2 hours of him droning on about his friend the scientist or his friend bob or his dad and cigarettes.
I do not recall anyone else speaking. As far as I can remember he didn’t have a single scientist speak. It was all Mr Bore blathering on on and on and on with some very interesting pics of chunks of ice falling.
It sucked is all I can say.
At least the great global warming swindle had some real scientists talking.
I think Southpark pegged gore in their Manbearpig Episode, and there is a good reason he has no friends. He is an *******.
-
well, at least you can say that you have watched it. which is wayyyy more than alot of people who attack it have done.
bully for you.
;)
-
Originally posted by JB88
well, at least you can say that you have watched it. which is wayyyy more than alot of people who attack it have done.
bully for you.
;)
LOL I was disappointed in it honestly, I heard all these wackos I know say how it changed their life.
Al Gore talking for two hours changing your life sounds like it would be a powerful documentary.
Yet it was boring, and wholly uninformative if you want more then the same fluff. I really thought it was going to have some convincing scientists talking about Global warming, that there would be more then the same charts that keep getting debunked and more then the same tired scare tactics.
Sure Gore had some charts and some really pretty footage with before and after pics but it was propaganda. He was the only one who spoke. He is a politician, how many of them really know anything about the the bull**** they push? Gore wants to be the president, he is trying to use global warming to get there. The Inconvenient Truth was as much a propaganda film as The Triumph of Will was.
The real inconvenient Truth about the Inconvenient truth was that it was Horribly boring and a waste of time for anyone looking for "Truth".
-
you lost me at wackos.
-
Originally posted by JB88
you lost me at wackos.
Is there some other way to refer to people who claim Al Gore and his movie changed their lives?
;)
-
Well, it sure mad a lot of folks go and "GULP" once properly :D
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Sure Gore had some charts and some really pretty footage with before and after pics but it was propaganda.
Does that mean that the pictures were fake? Are the glaciers really not retreating? Is mount Kilemanjaro really all covered in snow? What do you mean when you say that the picture of the broken up Larsen ice shelf in Antarctica was propaganda?
-
Hence the "GULP"
You have politician leaders from all over the world flying to Greenland, where the Glaciers are retreating and reveiling land that was covered in ice for millions of years.
The title "INCONVENIENT truth" sort of fits.
As a sidenote, if you watch disaster movies, look at the denier types. Last I remember was Dante's peak. The main core of the character is to deny that there is something happening and try to keep all going in the daily routine untill hell breaks loose.
-
Originally posted by Angus
As for the "any child knows that", you have roped yer ankle.
..........And you are having yours repeatedly humped by the pay for sayers.
You seem to enjoy it though , so I guess all is well. :rofl
-
jb... as for albores movie.... Just as with any liberal socialist "documentary" meant to decieve... It is difficult for me to sit through...
I find it best to let the dust settle on such things like albores movie and michelle moors crap for a bit...
These tear jerker dramas are best taken after they have been debunked... find a good site like.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=d0235a70-33f1-45b3-803b-829b1b3542ef
and then watch as much of the movie as you can stand.. but..it will keep the blood pressure down... I mean... If you don't do that...you know the guy is lying but... you don't have the facts so you have to try to what he is saying and then do the work or... watch the damn thing 20 times...
These are not books.. and for good reason... a book is easier to debunk.. some poor soul had to watch the albore or michelle moore crap a dozen or so times taking notes to do the research...
I would 100 times rather that someone else do that.
I would wait for the book but it ain't gonna happen. the "gulpers" as angus put it can't read anyway. only images and emotion work on em.
Hasn't anyone noticed that...even in this thread.. the ones most vested in the man made part of global warming are all lefties? They are all short on proof and all long on emotion and anger and name calling tho.
If I am a "fool" and "stupid" and an "idiot" about asking for the math then... I at least am in good company... thousands and thousands of the worlds most respected scientists all feel the same. there are a lot of scientists who have begun to doubt the whole co2 religion... very few converts.
lazs
-
I guess what starts most people on the road to doubt is that we know that the earth goes through heating and cooling cycles... we know that they have happened for all time and that man was never a player...
What caused these cycles? what heated and cooled the planet? Why is the heating and cooling that has happened since man existed now all of a sudden 100% mans fault or....
In this case.. can we really take credit for pulling the planet out of an ice age?
That is what the man made global warming alarmists are saying in essence is that we have managed to pull the planet out of an ice age.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I would wait for the book but it ain't gonna happen.
Who do you think you are kidding? I doubt you have ever read a book, let alone one without pictures and with lots of complicated words like "climate" or "atmosphere".
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I guess what starts most people on the road to doubt is that we know that the earth goes through heating and cooling cycles... we know that they have happened for all time and that man was never a player...
Not before 1750, that is correct. Now lets look at the development since 1750.
I know words are complicated and I know that I have explained this to you about a dozen times already....but alas, it seems you need to upgrade your intelligence before you can comprehend all those complicated words and concepts.
So lets try this.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png)
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
..........And you are having yours repeatedly humped by the pay for sayers.
You seem to enjoy it though , so I guess all is well. :rofl
You can say that, but that rope seems to be thin enough not to notice.
Lazs's quote and respond was either a mistake or a deliberate twist. I hope it was a misake.
As for the many quoting on Gore's movie, without seeing it, we have an old saying up here. The loudest barrel is the empty one.
-
And Lazs:
"In this case.. can we really take credit for pulling the planet out of an ice age?"
There was not an iceage 250 years ago. Not 1000 years ago. Not 5000 years ago.
Read up on the timeline please. Okay, to have things roughly, we have civilization less than 10.000 years. We have homo sapiens creeping out of "apiens" for a lot longer. We have had polar Icecaps some 20 million years as far as is known.
So, alas, enter homo Lazsiens. Seems like the creature is not only melting the caps away within some 5% of the time lapsed since human civilization, but also not identifying it, and meanwhile striving not to do anything against it, and convincing himself that is't pointless anyway.
Guess God even makes mistakes.:confused:
-
so hortlund.. there has never been a time that the co2 concentration was higher than it is now?
look at the ice age cycles and at the temperature cycles... look at the margin of error...
You have to really stretch to see anything unusual going on. you have to have charts that are truncated or use tiny little increments that are far less than the margin of error.
to rebut any doubt about it you are left with noting but name calling.
I have asked you to prove the math wrong.. to show me how our contribution to co2 can possibly be heating the planet.
All these cycles in the past.. these normal fluctuations just like now.. they happened without man even being around. What caused it to heat and cool? Is it possible that something other than co2 drives global temps?
Co2 lags not leads. the ocean is heating the air not the air heating the ocean.. if co2 was the cause then the ocean would not be heating until we got the air one hell of a lot hotter. A shift in the earths molten core would heat the oceans...sea floor spreading.. that sort of thing... not a half a degree in air temp.
and... how do you explain that co2 always lags temp change... not leads..lags?
How do you explain that most of co2's ability to absorb long wave radiation (heat from the sun) is done by the first 20% of co2... each doubling does logarithmic less to stop radiation until a further doubling does nothing.
but... I don't really expect you to answer any real questions... I have read enough of the alarmist sites to recognize your style in them..
What I expect from you is emotion and truncated charts and junk science and....of course..
name calling. vague references to hitler are always good... "denier" and even references to churchill and such... "fool" and "idiot" are good too.
I don't think anyone is bothering any more to wait for real data from you.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
The loudest barrel is the empty one.
I agree with that and it pretty much sums up Al baby.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so hortlund.. there has never been a time that the co2 concentration was higher than it is now?
look at the ice age cycles and at the temperature cycles... look at the margin of error...
You have to really stretch to see anything unusual going on. you have to have charts that are truncated or use tiny little increments that are far less than the margin of error.
lazs
Laz, the pattern being show in that graph is not strictly to do with CO2 emmissions. Our ice age cycle has been determined to be causally related to our orbit around the sun, which elongates every ten thousand years or so. As usual, you completely miss the point he was making. C' est l' vie. You are lucky I was bitten by a shark and cannot type fast, or i might launch into one of my long posts. Ignorance is bliss, at least where you are concerned.
-
What was the reason you stay away from these boards. Mooray? I forget.
:D
-
moray... my point was that nature controlled global climate for a long long time. we have not taken over that duty.
Nature is still at work. My point is that co2 is such a tiny little part of global climate change.... something that is a result of more than a cause of.... that it is laughable to try to stretch the math so that co2 is the great mover in the universe...
even more laughable to imagine that our tiny contribution to its tiny contribution is so important.
I think that the alarmists just jumped the gun (again) and that they failed to get everyone on board before the debate started.
Now.. people are starting to ask about the math and they have nothing.
For instance... In your opinion moray... If we all ceased to exist this afternoon... by your high priests of climate.... what would the climate on earth be like 100 years from now? 20 years from now? how bout next year?
Would the charts look pretty much the way they have always looked? I mean... taken as a whole with a long eons scale?
Is man affecting the sun? of course not. Is man affecting the tilt of the globe or orbit around the sun? of course not. Is man affecting seafloor spreading? Of course not. Is man affecting the molten core of the planet and how it heats the oceans? no... of course not.
So what is man affecting? well.. greenhouse gases? oh wait.... 99% or more of them we can't affect... so let's just ignore that and say that co2... a tiny little fraction... is the reason the planet heats and cools.
To say that man controls co2 and thus the climate of the planet is to say that without you... sharks would never use their teeth...
lazs
-
Here's the most level-headed assessment of the global warming (sorry, the new focus group approved term is now "climate change") hysteria I've seen...and it comes from Bret Stephens writing in the Wall Street Journal:
I confess: I am prepared to acknowledge that the world has been and will be getting warmer thanks in some part to an increase in man-made atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. I acknowledge this in the same way I'm confident that the equatorial radius of Saturn is about 60,000 kilometers: not because I've measured it myself, but out of a deep reserve of faith in the methods of the scientific community, above all its reputation for transparency and open-mindedness.
All you globalwarmingists have to be chomping at the bit. A right-wing, business-loving, damn-the-people-and-the-environment conservative ADMITS that there actually is global warming! BUT WAIT!!! Before you start getting your gums all in a lather though read his whole article here (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010529).
Overall, I believe he accurately captures the source of the frustration (and in many cases anger) that the majority of us feel with regard to globalwarmingclimatechangedoo mandgloomers.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
I agree with that and it pretty much sums up Al baby.
Al was right about one big thing though. It's warming :D
-
The article touches on a lot of the reasons why the alarmists are shooting themselves in the foot.
angus... yep.. it got warmer after being cooler... it may get a little warmer yet and then it will get cooler again...
and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it... even if we all left the planet today.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
Al was right about one big thing though. It's warming :D
He might also be able to tell you what day he was born on also. Might being the key word.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
He might also be able to tell you what day he was born on also. Might being the key word.
Well, aside from that being a cheap answer, I belive he does.
Looking deeper into several shocking statements in his documentary, he has many other things right as well.....
-
It appears that the “scientific consensus” on man-made global warming is an illusion manufactured by Al Gore and his ilk. Far from the scientific debate being over, as Al Gore and others would like us to believe, the actual consensus is that mankind is not causing global warming, nor is it expected that what warming there is will be catastrophic. The second to last paragraph on the UN IPCC is particularly interesting. It turns out that the “scientific consensus” is really the non-scientist consensus! Who could’ve predicted that?
So, Angus and company, if you put faith in the scientific consensus view, do you now support the position that man is not causing global warming? That is, after all, what the true scientific consensus is, according to this study.
http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm
Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.
Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.
By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.
-
Originally posted by Angus
I belive he does.
Looking deeper into several shocking statements in his documentary, he has many other things right as well.....
Plastic dash statues can be had on ebay. :)
-
Sabre, you're still stuck with that no warming is occuring?
Quaff a few and hike to Greenland, that might bring you around....
-
Originally posted by Angus
Sabre, you're still stuck with that no warming is occuring?
Quaff a few and hike to Greenland, that might bring you around....
Actually, my last post says nothing of the sort, if you'll re-read it. It is about the consensus (or lack thereof) that man is causing global warming. It also notes that there is even less support that what warming there is will in any way be a global catastrophe.
Now, answer the question please. Since the scientific consensus does not support man-made global warming (bold added so you don't miss it again), will you now change your support for that discredited hypothesis?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Sabre, you're still stuck with that no warming is occuring?
Quaff a few and hike to Greenland, that might bring you around....
Hmmm.....................
Could have sworn I read somewhere that at one time in the past wheat was being grown in Greenland or Iceland, BUT a sudden climate change resulted in a MINI-ICE-AGE which also created the perfect environment for the Black Plague that followed shortly after?
That suggest to me that at one time it was actually HOTTER then it is and has been for some time?
Hmmm............ the dinosaur bones found under the arctic ice suggest it was HOTTER on our world in the past?
-
look where it got the dinosaurs.
;)
-
where did man made global warming get the dino's?
lazs
-
The polar caps were not always in the same place.
As for the Dino's I'm sure it's Flintstones fault :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triassic-Jurassic_extinction_event
Hmmm, Jurassic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic
And the climate, - warm and arid.
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
And here:
http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1130%2F0016-7606(1992)104%3C0543:PCDTEJ%3E2.3.CO%3B2&ct=1
Sound cosy:
"Three major features of the simulated Early Jurassic climate include the following. (1) A global warming, compared to the present, of 5 °C to 10 °C, with temperature increases at high latitudes five times this global average. Average summer temperatures exceed 35 °C in low-latitude regions of western Pangaea where eolian sandstones testify to the presence of vast deserts. (2) Simulated precipitation and evaporation patterns agree closely with the moisture distribution interpreted from evaporites, and coal deposits. High rainfall rates are associated primarily with monsoons that originate over the warm Tethys Ocean."
Now call me a nanny, but 35 °C as an AVERAGE summer temp is really nasty. Add vast deserts and MEGAMONSOONS. Nice, - oh brave new world.
-
It still cracks me up to see various US posters, on this and other boards, claiming that the programme of analysing global climate change is "all about money".
Note, the topic being discussed is global climate change. Not US climate change. Not Texas climate change. Which part of "global" don't these idiots understand? :lol
As has been pointed out earlier, the IPCC consists of more than 200 countries, some of which are poor African states with a per capita GDP of less than $3000.
* Are the scientists receiving megabucks from their governments? Nope.
* Are they receiving megabucks from the US government? Nope.
* Given that some of these countries do not have any political parties, is it a "political issue" in these countries? Nope.
I rest my case. :D
-
Originally posted by Ocean27
As has been pointed out earlier, the IPCC consists of more than 200 countries, some of which are poor African states with a per capita GDP of less than $3000.
So we should trust their ultra-low budget research when massive super-computers can't even give us accurate models?
-
"idiots"? So any scientist who doesn't agree with catastrophic or even significant man made global warming is an idiot?
Did you read sabres post? seems a great many scientists... the majority in fact do not buy into the hand wringing gloom and doom man made global warming scenario.
I can see how you would "rest your case" tho... I have watched more than a few here "rest their case"... usually...not long after they were asked to show us the math behind man made co2 causing global warming.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Ocean27
I rest my case.
You have to have one first.
-
He did.
And as I have pointed out before, the "locally" melting polar caps contain much more mass than all atmosphere in the USA. Actually more mass than the whole earths atmosphere.
No way around that one I'm afraid.
-
The ice is melting! The ice is melting!
Once again..we get it.
Ice has been known to melt before and climate has been in a constant state of change since the beginning of recorded history.
I don`t expect it to stop changing anyways soon.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
The ice is melting! The ice is melting!
Progress
-
the ice in your area is melting.. in the south pole it is getting thicker... something has changed... something always does.. it has always been this way.
Man has nothing to do with it.
lazs
-
You have to remeber too that the scientists who say manmade global warming is a fact are alot of the same guys who said man was destroying the ozone layer 10 years ago. Turned out the ozone layer is Growing and yes there is a hole in it...over antartica, which has been there for millions of years.
I beleive that global climate change is natural, which is supported by ice later measurements, and will balance it self with a period of cooling in the future. This does not mean that I am all for pollution and not attempting to change our ways, as long as that doesnt mean destroying our economies by shutting down CO2 producing industries. I highly doubt that these people calling for new energy sources would also like to pay the taxes required to build wind, solar, and other renewable energy facilities, because they are not cheap and some has to pay for them.
-
Originally posted by C(Sea)Bass
You have to remeber too that the scientists who say manmade global warming is a fact are alot of the same guys who said man was destroying the ozone layer 10 years ago. Turned out the ozone layer is Growing and yes there is a hole in it...over antartica, which has been there for millions of years.
Is there no end to the stupidity that resides in the US...the world wonders.
Is it genetic? After all, we should of probably take into account just exactly who it was that left europe and went west. Hyper-religious morons and/or those who could not make it on their own in the old world. Kinda like Australia...we probably should not expect too much from the bottom of the gene-pool.
Or is it a result of the inability of the US school system? I honestly dont know.
Anyway...lad...before you just start talking without knowing f1ck all about the subject (like lasz), at least TRY to get an understanding of the topic. Here is a good place to start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Is there no end to the stupidity that resides in the US
Not at the moment, but we are working on tightening up immigration.
You still have time to make the team.
After all, we should of probably take into account just exactly who it was that left europe and went west. Hyper-religious morons and/or those who could not make it on their own in the old world
:rofl The oxymoron meters just red lined.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
the ice in your area is melting.. in the south pole it is getting thicker... something has changed... something always does.. it has always been this way.
Man has nothing to do with it.
lazs
Your opinion.
Enough warming will always eventually mean melting. It is tough to estimate how much Antarctica is melting vs gaining, but the temperature...The central and southern parts of the west coast of the Antarctic Peninsula have warmed by nearly 3°C. The cause is not known.
Antarctica and Greenland contain about 99% of landbound Ice on earth. And the better explored Greenland is melting at a very good speed.
look
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
But Antarctica won't go in a day. That's good, because it means that we humans have some time. Or do you really need to see it going before you belive it? Well you can start with Greenland, for it's quite visible there, and that is a big block of Ice. Enough to raise SL more than 7 metres. Thats more than 20feet.
And talking of cycles and age, it's been there for a very long time. Much much longer than any intelligent life, in fact it's older than the Ice age.
I don't go with the doomsday guys who predict a Venus atmosphere within some decades. Since we had no doomsday in the Jurassic period for instance. However that climate would pretty much suffice to wipe out mankind. Most of it.
-
LOL... we get called stupid by people who can't even do math and whose only "proof" is wikie...
That is about it tho for hortlund... no proof sooo... everyone who doesn't agree with him is "stupid".
That would include more than half the scientists of the world who think that man made co2 is not causing global warming... that would include even 3/4 who say that it will not cause a catastrophe.
The amount of scientists who are deserting hortlunds co2 hoax are legion... if they ever really believed it in the first place that is. somehow.. I don't think they were as rigid and insipid as hortlund.
The jury is still out on the ozone and the "hole" it is certain that the hole was probly always there and is natural... it is certain that the amount of reduction in cfc's that we achieved could not have saved the planet. It is also certain that cfc's are a real pollutant... unlike c02 which is benificial.
lazs
-
Angus... if the temperature of the south pole increased (as you say) 3 degrees... it would still be below freezing. nothing would melt.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
LOL... we get called stupid by people who can't even do math and whose only "proof" is wikie...
Just out of curiosity, what is your educational level lasz?
That is about it tho for hortlund... no proof sooo... everyone who doesn't agree with him is "stupid".
Nah, I dont call people who disagree with me stupid. I do call people like you and him stupid though. The reason for that is because you are clearly unable to understand the issue we are talking about, but instead of acknowledging that, you copy text and arguments from websites and pretend to know what you are talking about.
But I have had it with your dishonesty and your stupidity. From now on, I am not going to argue with your retarded statements without first having you present your sources.
That would include more than half the scientists of the world who think that man made co2 is not causing global warming...
What is your source for this statement?
that would include even 3/4 who say that it will not cause a catastrophe.
What is your source for this statement?
The amount of scientists who are deserting hortlunds co2 hoax are legion...
What is your source for this statement?
if they ever really believed it in the first place that is. somehow.. I don't think they were as rigid and insipid as hortlund.
I think you are just making **** up.
The jury is still out on the ozone and the "hole"
LOL this is so mindblowingly dumb. But ok, what is your source for that statement? What makes you think the jury is out on the ozone and the hole?
it is certain that the hole was probly always there and is natural...
What is your source for this statement?
it is certain that the amount of reduction in cfc's that we achieved could not have saved the planet.
What is your source for this statement?
It is also certain that cfc's are a real pollutant... unlike c02 which is benificial.
Unless its too much...then co2 causes the global warming we are trying to prevent.
-
How long will it take without the world ending before the GWA lose their steam and find some other new religion to support, 10 years? 30?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
How long will it take without the world ending before the GWA lose their steam and find some other new religion to support, 10 years? 30?
How long would it take for you to get an education, 10 years? 30?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
How long would it take for you to get an education, 10 years? 30?
Personal and petty attacks are not a sign of intelligence.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Personal and petty attacks are not a sign of intelligence.
What is your educational level anyway? Its a fair question since the topic we are discussing acutally requires some form of intelligence and education to understand.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
What is your educational level anyway? Its a fair question since the topic we are discussing acutally requires some form of intelligence and education to understand.
I have about 120 hours of credit at various universities but only an associate degree in electronics. I have about 15 computer certifications from various software makers such as a Novell MCNE and Microsoft MCSE.
Now that I've satisfied your curiosity, what is your education? Specifically as related to climatology which you seem to claim expertise.
-
Hortlund?
-
I guess he figures I's too stupid to deserve a response. Perhaps he considers himself one of the elite educagentsia that should be doing all the thinking for the rest of us?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Now that I've satisfied your curiosity, what is your education?
Masters of law.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Masters of law.
Which means you are probably formally educated in climatology no more than me or lazs? How much science was required for your degree? My two year degree at least required a semester of physics and calculus.
Citing education as a requirement to have an "intelligent" discussion is less than intelligent imo. I've known plenty of well educated people that seemed to be of average or below intelligence and plenty of uneducated people that were very smart. Formal education does not even mean you are accurately informed on any specific subject.
-
I did 3 years of science at "highschool", dont know what to translate it to, but its the place you go to before the university and after "normal" school. You go there when you are age 16-19. We get to chose different specialities, and I went with science (physics, chemistry, biology and math). Its mostly future doctors or civil engineers who take that particular speciality...I have no idea why I ended up there...probably because I thought it was a high-status education at the time.
Soo...That means 6 semesters of physics, 6 semesters of chemistry, 6 semesters of biology and 6 semesters of math.
To have an intelligent discussion on any topic, you need to have people who understand what they are discussing. That is not the case with lasz. And judging from your comments, neither is it with you.
Formal education might not mean much, but it at least tells you that the person who went through the formal education had enough motivation and intelligence to do just that. The value of the education itself varies wildly depending on what it is.
-
Hort, a couple of issues.
a) The science of meteorology is new. How new? Try the 1960's when we started really predicting the weather with early computers. Weather has been studied since early Greek times, but as a science, predictions began mathematically in the late 20's but progressed since. Heck, we didn’t even know about Jet streams until the mid-late 40’s.
b) It is hard for meteorologists to accurately predict weather temperatures to 90% accuracy for 7 days in advance. Models and the science are getting better, but it's still a relatively new science field, similar to nuclear. How they can predict climate change 10-50-100 years from now is an interesting dilemma for the science field. A lot of us are asking the same questions based on this fact. Can they? Are they accurate? How accurate are they? Are the models being used 99.99999% accurate because it can impact the long term results over 50-100 years? Is there anything else that could cause the earth to warm?
c) The earth is warming, but it has cooled and warmed in patterns, and often without any explanation. It is unknown whether to 99.9% ascertain that the current warming has a specific interference from human released pollutants or a natural trend. For example, Scientists has reported that Mars is warming too but they don't know why either. But to say with a certain that it’s CO2 is hard to prove because of the relationship between the atmosphere and the planet. It’s a very hard science field. Could they be wrong? If so, what next? At what risk is the green-minded society placing their entire gambit to clean up our planet on CO2 alone?
d) If the initiatives of a green-minded society are on a chance that perhaps a global temperature rise of one or two Celsius the next one hundred years is the issue, they need to give their heads a shake. CO2 emissions (if it is indeed causing global warming) are a symptom of much larger problem: blatant consumption of the world’s natural resources so that 5% of the worlds wealthy can become rich on the backs of 95% of the worlds poor. That issue needs to be addressed – can we start living differently than we are today to make a real impact on the world?
e) You’ll have a greater chance of dying from pollution-related diseases from consumerism than global warming will even if the world’s temperature increased 5-10 degrees Celsius. People and economies can adapt but decisions are made out of necessity. If our environment is changing, so what? Can I still drive my Lexus to work? Yep. Fly to sunny Mexico every few years? Yep – just don’t fly in Hurricane season.. Can I breathe the air and live a nice life? Nope. Why? Cause the air is becoming polluted. What can I do? I want to live! Changing how we impact our world will do more in the long run than worrying about some dude driving a Hummer or a Lexus getting 15mpg. Could we change how we live with a greater purpose in life? If you give them enough incentive it will.
In case you haven’t realised, I think the issue of CO2 is a side-bar discussion to the larger issue before it becomes a problem. Our impact on the environment, not our factory emissions, is the issue. CO2 is a symptom of that problem. Fix the problem, symptom goes away.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I did 3 years of science at "highschool", dont know what to translate it to, but its the place you go to before the university and after "normal" school. You go there when you are age 16-19. We get to chose different specialities, and I went with science (physics, chemistry, biology and math). Its mostly future doctors or civil engineers who take that particular speciality...I have no idea why I ended up there...probably because I thought it was a high-status education at the time.
Soo...That means 6 semesters of physics, 6 semesters of chemistry, 6 semesters of biology and 6 semesters of math.
To have an intelligent discussion on any topic, you need to have people who understand what they are discussing. That is not the case with lasz. And judging from your comments, neither is it with you.
Formal education might not mean much, but it at least tells you that the person who went through the formal education had enough motivation and intelligence to do just that. The value of the education itself varies wildly depending on what it is.
We all take science in highschool here and it lasts until one is approximately 18 years of age. It is not at the same level as that taught in our colleges. How much science did you study beyond highschool? Formally I mean of course as you seem to have nothing but disdain for education outside of formal academia. If the answer is none then you have disqualified yourself from discussing any subjects of a scientific nature based on your own standards I'm afraid.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Formal education might not mean much, but it at least tells you that the person who went through the formal education had enough motivation and intelligence to do just that. The value of the education itself varies wildly depending on what it is.
I want to answer this specifically. While I agree with what you say here I think you are revealing a prejudice I find repugnant. Dismissing another's beliefs or values based on their education rather than their argument is of an arrogance I find distasteful. It's one thing to call someone stupid for their argument but another to say their argument is stupid because they are "uneducated". You seem to be doing the latter, perhaps I'm wrong? If I am wrong then why not let their argument rest on it's own merits without asking for their qualifications, especially when you have none yourself?
-
Originally posted by Mister Fork
a) The science of meteorology is new.
Yes.
b) It is hard for meteorologists to accurately predict weather temperatures to 90% accuracy for 7 days in advance. Models and the science are getting better, but it's still a relatively new science field, similar to nuclear. How they can predict climate change 10-50-100 years from now is an interesting dilemma for the science field. A lot of us are asking the same questions based on this fact. Can they? Are they accurate? How accurate are they? Are the models being used 99.99999% accurate because it can impact the long term results over 50-100 years? Is there anything else that could cause the earth to warm?
Predicting weather temperatures is not really what this is about though. For example, we know that surface water temperature is a deciding factor when it comes to wind strenght in hurricanes. We also know that the surface temperature of the ocean is increasing. These two known facts lets us make predictions about the future.
Same with CO2 and average temperature. We know that CO2 is a deciding factor when it comes to how much heat is captured in the earths atmosphere via the greenhouse effect. We also know that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is getting higher and higher. These two known facts lets us make predictions about the future.
The crucial thing right now is not to know exactly how warm the average surface temperature on earth will be in 50-100 years. We know that it will be warmer, and we can make predictions based on various scenarios.
Then there are alot of unknowns. One of the big ones, without a doubt is the permafrost in Siberia. We cant know exactly when or if that one will thaw, but we can know that we will be in big trouble if it does.
So, we dont need to know the exact weather in june 2067, it is enough to know the basic facts.
c) The earth is warming, but it has cooled and warmed in patterns, and often without any explanation. It is unknown whether to 99.9% ascertain that the current warming has a specific interference from human released pollutants or a natural trend. For example, Scientists has reported that Mars is warming too but they don't know why either. But to say with a certain that it’s CO2 is hard to prove because of the relationship between the atmosphere and the planet. It’s a very hard science field. Could they be wrong? If so, what next? At what risk is the green-minded society placing their entire gambit to clean up our planet on CO2 alone?
Actually the Mars-thing has been thoroughly debunked. And it has been proven that the sun is not responsible for the current warming of earth. To put it in rudimentary terms, its getting warmer on earth, but the suns activity is diminishing.
It has cooled and warmed in patterns, but these patterns have explanations. And that is really beside the point, because as I detailed above, we do know that the concentration of CO2 is the primary deciding factor on how much heat gets captured via the greenhouse effect, and we do know that the current CO2 levels are the highest recorded in the past 600 000 years. That means it is getting warmer, and this will continue, because it will not start getting colder if CO2 levels are rising.
d) If the initiatives of a green-minded society are on a chance that perhaps a global temperature rise of one or two Celsius the next one hundred years is the issue, they need to give their heads a shake. CO2 emissions (if it is indeed causing global warming) are a symptom of much larger problem: blatant consumption of the world’s natural resources so that 5% of the worlds wealthy can become rich on the backs of 95% of the worlds poor. That issue needs to be addressed – can we start living differently than we are today to make a real impact on the world?
Whats important here is the global warming problem. Not some socialist scheeme to even out the differences between the rich and the poor. If you want to discuss stuff like that, you should find another thread.
e) You’ll have a greater chance of dying from pollution-related diseases from consumerism than global warming will even if the world’s temperature increased 5-10 degrees Celsius.
I run a greater risk at that, yes. But that is because I live where I live. If you were to talk to someone from Bangladesh, the answer would be different, because if global mean temperature rises with 2 degrees, his home will be under water. Or if you talk to someone who gets his drinking water from the Himalayas...because those glaciers will be gone in 50 or so years if we get that temperature rise. And then you will be looking at lots of thirsty Chinese and Indian guys.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
We all take science in highschool here and it lasts until one is approximately 18 years of age. It is not at the same level as that taught in our colleges. How much science did you study beyond highschool? Formally I mean of course as you seem to have nothing but disdain for education outside of formal academia. If the answer is none then you have disqualified yourself from discussing any subjects of a scientific nature based on your own standards I'm afraid.
How lucky for me that I took that semester at the university before I went to lawschool then.
However, I really doubt that your "highschool science" is what Im talking about here, since the school systems are different. Probably more accurate to translate it to college-level.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I want to answer this specifically. While I agree with what you say here I think you are revealing a prejudice I find repugnant. Dismissing another's beliefs or values based on their education rather than their argument is of an arrogance I find distasteful. It's one thing to call someone stupid for their argument but another to say their argument is stupid because they are "uneducated". You seem to be doing the latter, perhaps I'm wrong? If I am wrong then why not let their argument rest on it's own merits without asking for their qualifications, especially when you have none yourself?
I say that lasz's argument is stupid because his arguments clearly show a fundamental flaw in his understanding of physics, biology and logic. To be blunt, he doesnt understand what he is talking about.
Same with that other guy who doubted there was a hole in the ozone layer.
You, I am not so sure, I have not read the entire thread looking for what you have said, but the post I responded to clearly shows that you fail to understand the severity of the threat. But, if you were to present some coherent argument, I might change my low opinion of your intelligence and/or understanding of the issue.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Is there no end to the stupidity that resides in the US...the world wonders.
Is it genetic? After all, we should of probably take into account just exactly who it was that left europe and went west. Hyper-religious morons and/or those who could not make it on their own in the old world. Kinda like Australia...we probably should not expect too much from the bottom of the gene-pool.
Or is it a result of the inability of the US school system? I honestly dont know.
Anyway...lad...before you just start talking without knowing f1ck all about the subject (like lasz), at least TRY to get an understanding of the topic. Here is a good place to start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
O wow a wikipedia article as a source!, it must be true, after all user edited sites are never wrong.
I would post the article about the ozone layer but it was in a national geographic magazine about 5 years ago and I no longer have it.
So if your going to tell some they are wrong use a real source and don't bring nationality into it, it's unrelated and uncalled for. I doubt you would like if I called everyone in sweden dumb ( which I wouldn't because they are not and it is a very nice country).
And as far as my personal education goes, I am currently working on a degree in fisheries and aquaculture at one of the best enviromental colleges in this country.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
How lucky for me that I took that semester at the university before I went to lawschool then.
However, I really doubt that your "highschool science" is what Im talking about here, since the school systems are different. Probably more accurate to translate it to college-level.
Almost all of our public highschools offer Geometry, Algebra, Trigonometery, and 2-3 semesters of Calculus. Typically only through Algebra is required to graduate though and even that may have changed. I think you have a pretty low opinion of our education system here? I can't fault you for that, it has failed imo.
So, this plane full of lawyers on the way to a lawyer convention is hijacked. The hijackers threaten to release one lawyer every hour until their demands are met. :p
-
Originally posted by C(Sea)Bass
O wow a wikipedia article as a source!, it must be true, after all user edited sites are never wrong.
[/b]
LOL Ive got to hand it to you...just when I thought I could not think you were dumber, you went ahead and posted that. Whats YOUR source...pray tell? Oh wait, lets read on.
Meanwhile, check out the links at the bottom of the page for sources.
I would post the article about the ozone layer but it was in a national geographic magazine about 5 years ago and I no longer have it.
BWAHAHAHAHA this is priceless. "My source is an article I read five years ago, but I dont have it anymore".
So if your going to tell some they are wrong use a real source
You mean like your made up article?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
So, this plane full of lawyers on the way to a lawyer convention is hijacked. The hijackers threaten to release one lawyer every hour until their demands are met. :p
Hehe, its actually much worse than that...I work for the government.
-
This is not the original article but it covers most of the same evidence.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/tech/main523785.shtml
If needed I can post more articles, one of which is newer(2006).
-
Originally posted by C(Sea)Bass
This is not the original article but it covers most of the same evidence.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/tech/main523785.shtml
Lets compare two statements shall we?
Originally posted by you
You have to remeber too that the scientists who say manmade global warming is a fact are alot of the same guys who said man was destroying the ozone layer 10 years ago. Turned out the ozone layer is Growing
Quote from article you present as source of your original post
Newman explained that while "chlorine and bromine chemicals cause the ozone hole, the temperature is also a key factor in ozone loss."
...
An Australian study published two weeks ago reported that chlorine-based chemical levels in the atmosphere are falling, and the hole in the ozone layer should close within 50 years. Although the ozone layer has not yet begun to repair itself, the hole would probably start closing within five years, said Paul Fraser, of the Australian government-funded Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, or CSIRO.
-
At the begining of the article it states that the hole was measured at 6 million miles that september, while it was measured at around 9 million miles each september over the last 6 years, so it has been shrinking even if that is only due to abnormally warm weather.
Also in this article from 2006, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/ozone_recovery.html , NASA explains that the hole is shrinking just a a much slower pace than was originally thought.
Bottom line: The hole is shrinking.
-
A recent study in August 23d's Nature issue links increased sun exposure over the northern hemisphere to increased greenhouse gases and local heating in Antarctica. The relation is particularily visible for the periods of global warming that marked the end of the last four ice ages.
The data is from a Japanese carrot made at the Fuji Dome. Cross-referencing with EPICA drillings at the europeean C-Dome will follow shortly.
-
Hi Hortlund,
I see that you're engaging in my conversation in absolutes which is not a very intelligent way to debate issues which I think both you and I agree upon. I see that you're also boasting about your 'law' degree. I won't let my M B A get in the way either since we're hauling our diks out. It's not like I learned anything in graduate school about geopolitics, socioeconomics, ideas marketing, and other global issues with respect to the WTO, IMF, and the UN.
We could talk about the real issues behind global warming, but perhaps you could take an objective approach? When you're ready to talk about how we can save our planet, give me a PM. I'm sure I can pick your brain on the politics of carbon trade credits, the legalities that await countries who void the Koyoto Accord, and how other international agencies can deal with future CO2 issues from the industrialization of developing nations.
But that's another topic.
-
sickem Fork:D
-
Originally posted by Mister Fork
Hi Hortlund,
I see that you're engaging in my conversation in absolutes which is not a very intelligent way to debate issues which I think both you and I agree upon. I see that you're also boasting about your 'law' degree. I won't let my M B A get in the way either since we're hauling our diks out. It's not like I learned anything in graduate school about geopolitics, socioeconomics, ideas marketing, and other global issues with respect to the WTO, IMF, and the UN.
We could talk about the real issues behind global warming, but perhaps you could take an objective approach? When you're ready to talk about how we can save our planet, give me a PM. I'm sure I can pick your brain on the politics of carbon trade credits, the legalities that await countries who void the Koyoto Accord, and how other international agencies can deal with future CO2 issues from the industrialization of developing nations.
But that's another topic.
I see lots of text here, but nothing adressing my answers to you. I take it that means you yield the discussion.
I will not pm you about how to "save the planet" however, if you dont want to discuss it in public, then I see little reason to discuss it at all.
-
I beleive there may be a foxy loxy in this story. Time will tell whether the role is played by big oil or the one world neo-socialists.
-
My education? well.. it isn't in law but...
I could scrape up an AA or so... mostly weighted toward chemistry and water science. I run a wastewater facility and am highly certified with continuing education a requirement.
I am not drawing on that tho... I am simply reading the articles by the pro man made global warming by c02 and the scientists who say it is a hoax or simply bad science.
I deal with EPA bad science all the time so I do draw on that experiance... I know how lawyers pretending to be "concerned" "advocacy groups"cause abuse of science.
Now... me and the 17,000 people with advanced degrees and mister fork and a lot of others are being called stupid... by.... a lawyer. in sweden no less.
And why not? the math doesn't add up. Mister fork hit it on the head about co2 but the lawyer and the iceland farmer won't listen.
but... is hortlund leading the scientific community?
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs
"Breaking: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
Associated issues: Global Warming
Last week in his blog post, New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears, on "
I can find no link anywhere that supports the math that man made co2 can have any affect on global warming that can be measured at even half what the margin of error would be.
Not one person can show me the math. Not one person has been able to dispute the math by the scientists who say that man made co2 is causing warming is a hoax.
Someone is stupid here but it is not the more than half of the worlds scientists who write peer reviewed papers saying that co2 isn't the problem.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
"Breaking: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
LOL typical dishonest BS.
First we have a majority supporting the consensus view of all the papers published between 1993 and 2003.
Then this new character shows up, desperate for a positive spin for the anti-environment crowd. So he examines the 528 papers on climate change, published after that...between 2004 to 2007.
Of these 528 total papers on climate change, he claims that only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.
So...we have a new study that shows that 6 % of the papers reject the consensus. 6%. And you hold up this as something positive for your retarded side?
BWAHAHAHAAHAHA :aok
Meanwhile...
http://www.ipcc.ch
-
hortlund... you are proving my point. Your side claimed that they had the majority... just a majority mind you... plenty did not agree..
that was an early study.... Now... a study that is current... says...nope...not so fast.... most do not agree...most think it is way overblown.
That is what I had claimed... They are deserting the ranks of the man made global warming religion... if in fact they ever were in it.
No matter what tho.. You have to admit...there are plenty of scientists who have more than a law degree who agree with me.
You just called thousands of em "stupid" in an earlier post.
Now it turns out that by your defenition of stupid.... more than half of the worlds scientists are "stupid"
Perhaps if they took some courses on swedish law?
lazs
-
It really is the sun...
Most debunking of the solar effect on global warming or... marginalizing it to only 25% or so of the warming... are traced to Lockwoods study. There are some real problems with that study tho.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/shining_more_light_on_the_solar_factor_a_discussion_of_problems_with_the_royal_society_paper_by_loc.html
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
hortlund... you are proving my point.
[/b]
If your point was that you are an idiot, then yeah you are correct.
Lets look at the figures.
In the 1993-2003 period
928 papes published. Not a single one disagreed with the consensus, 25% were "neutral", while 75% shared the consensus view.
In the 2004 - 2007 period
528 papers published. 6% disagreed with the consensus, 45% share the consensus view, 48% are "neutral".
So, we have 32 papers who disagree with the consensus. 32 of 1456.
We have 934 who agree with the consensus. 934 of 1456.
And we have 485 who are "neutral".
And lets remember that by "neutral" it just means that the author does not state an opinion either way, it doesnt count as pro or con for either side.
32 of 1456 are against, 934 of 1456 agree. See any majority here?
Your side claimed that they had the majority... just a majority mind you... plenty did not agree..
[/b]
And my side was right...again. And your side was wrong...again. As always.
-
The first century Zealots had nothing on the GWA in their fervor or zeal. Call me an idiot if you will but I won't be joining the church of the GWA anytime soon.
Unless they let me be the High Goombah
-
hortlund... interesting way to look at it... 5 years ago.. the true believers were legion.... 75% were praying at the altar of man made global warming... the rest...were "neutral". No opinion.
Now.... only 45% are true believers... 6% are going so far as to say it is not even possible... the rest have fallen off the evangelist band wagon and are now saying that they don't know...
That essentialy.... you are not making your point... you are not convincing then anymore...
The trend is huge and the direction is apparent to anyone but you. You are losing the faithful..
It is your own fault... yours and your priests arrogance and hysteria and outright lieing about the subject has angered the scientific community at last... they don't appreciate being called "stupid" anymore than I do and they are backlashing out at you and your priests.
The whole think is just more left wing BS done in the same old left wing BS way. an unholy marriage of socialism and science... it never fools anyone for long.
lazs
-
and.. I think that the anti's are being too generous..
"The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results."
what you are really seeing is that only one paper agrees with you about a real catastophe.
For instance... I agree that if I put a cup of salt down the toilet I am contributing to making the oceans saltier.. that does not mean that I think it is a problem.
face it.. they faithful are deserting in droves.. you pushed em into it tho with your lefty ways and arrogance and bullying.. you are your own worst enemy...
"stupid"... indeed..
lazs
-
Did anyone see the latest figures of the N-Pole meltings.
Score last year is AFAIK 1.000.000 sq. km. European sattellite mesure (it has been hovering since 1978 measuring the stuff now why would anybody send a sattellite up in 1978 to explore the Northern icemass, - how silly !!!)
So, I guess that the Sun is at a 20 million years peak, right?
-
Angus, the arctic sea melting may be an indication of global warming but a harbinger of doom it ain't.
-
Ya'll can stick your heads up your butts about global warming if you want but if something happens were all gonna look stupid. I don't see what the aversion is to admiting the possibility of something, just to ere on the safe side. Even if we can or can't do something about it, might as well check it out. What's the harm in that? But outright denying the possibility of something is a move only left up to the completely ignorant. Probably the same people said Albert Einstein was stupid about that E=MC2 thing.
Know it all's, usually don't end up knowing much about anything.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Ya'll can stick your heads up your butts about global warming if you want but if something happens were all gonna look stupid. I don't see what the aversion is to admiting the possibility of something, just to ere on the safe side. Even if we can or can't do something about it, might as well check it out. What's the harm in that? But outright denying the possibility of something is a move only left up to the completely ignorant. Probably the same people said Albert Einstein was stupid about that E=MC2 thing.
Know it all's, usually don't end up knowing much about anything.
Admitting the possibility of man made global warming is palatable to many of us. Relinquishing many of our pursuits and/or freedoms to those who insist upon drastic measures may not be.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Angus, the arctic sea melting may be an indication of global warming but a harbinger of doom it ain't.
Well, when something happens that has not happened since way before there were humans at all, and it happens in a span of a micrometer in time, (100-200 years out of 20 millions), I think it definately needs looking into.
BTW, the remaining icecap is 3 mi. sq.km. according to the article I read, so this means 25% gone in a year. Looking intothis, for I am sceptic on these numbers.
Meanwhile, with all this Ice mixing with the seawater, the seawater temp still went UP!
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Admitting the possibility of man made global warming is palatable to many of us. Relinquishing many of our pursuits and/or freedoms to those who insist upon drastic measures may not be.
a problem inherent within any addict.
-
ledpig... no one is saying that global warming is not possible... no one is saying that it is impossible that man may have some hand in it that is yet unproved..
no one is saying that ghosts or bigfoot are not possible.
What we are saying is that co2 math doesn't add up and that a lot of really bad science has been misused to create that hoax.
The good news is that it is getting colder everywhere.. it is called fall/winter... people will of course realize that it was better when it was spring/summer.
There has been no global warming for 7 years at least... none in North America for 2 decades according to sat data.
The bad news is that the democrats control a lot of the government and may control it all in a year or so and then... they will use the co2 myth to push for bigger and more expensive and intrusive government.
I imagine that it will be difficult for them tho since it will be apparent to almost everyone that the whole thing as layed out by the UN and such is a hoax. When real painful measures are proposed... people will be glad to listen to the scientist who mock the hoax.
As the debate becomes more serious and more at stake... more and more scientists are not holding their tounges... more and more are speaking out and deserting the man made global warming insanity.
course.. the democrats can bribe em back into the fold... billions (on top of the two billion they now give away a year) to study ways "to prevent man made global warming"
You aint gonna get a grant by saying it aint happening now are ya?
lazs
-
and angus... why is it "global" when only your area is getting warmer and it is "local" when other areas are getting colder?
The global temp has not risen in at least 7 years.. the peaks were in the 30's when there was much less co2.
lazs
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Admitting the possibility of man made global warming is palatable to many of us. Relinquishing many of our pursuits and/or freedoms to those who insist upon drastic measures may not be.
I don't think we could fix it anyway, not unless we all got rid of our cars and rode skateboards. Hell, i'd rather die than do that, i'd be dead by then anyway. Let the next generation suffer what do we care, heh, might as well guys. We'll long be worm food. We have to decide what do we care about, long life on this earth or comfort and convenience while were here. Same choice an addict must make, should i self destruct doing this stuff, or do i care enough about life to do that anyway. Or do you want to live a long healthy miserable life.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Well, when something happens that has not happened since way before there were humans at all, and it happens in a span of a micrometer in time, (100-200 years out of 20 millions), I think it definately needs looking into.
BTW, the remaining icecap is 3 mi. sq.km. according to the article I read, so this means 25% gone in a year. Looking intothis, for I am sceptic on these numbers.
Meanwhile, with all this Ice mixing with the seawater, the seawater temp still went UP!
U Illiinois at Urbana (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/) Just when you thought this season's cryosphere couldn't be more strange .... The Southern Hemisphere sea ice area is close to surpassing the previous historic maximum of 16.03 million sq. km and is currently at 15.91 million sq. km. The observed sea ice record in the Southern Hemisphere (1979-present) is not as long as the Northern Hemisphere. Prior to the satellite era, direct observations of the SH sea ice edge were sporadic.
The NH sea ice area is currently at its historic minimum (2.92 million sq. km) representing a 27% drop in sea ice coverage compared to the previous (2005) record NH ice minimum.
-
Scary.
BTW, southern sea-ice should be quite a bit because of the vast break-offs.
Afer all, most of the southern cap is on dryland, and not at sea. But big shelves on the float should mean a lot more sea ice.
-
Global Dimming Transcript (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3310_sun.html)
Global Dimming Timeline (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/dimm-nf.html)
Global dimming is masking the effects of Global Warming, much more than was previously thought. Which means that Global Warming is having a greater effect than previously thought.
-
Folks, the todays problems we have with CO2 and Global warming is
the result from the '50. As far as i know, released gas on earth takes
aprox 50 years before it starts working in the athomosphere.
Imagine how the world will look in 50 years from now on, with all
the todays released gas...
unbelievable...
-
Originally posted by Angus
Scary.
BTW, southern sea-ice should be quite a bit because of the vast break-offs.
Afer all, most of the southern cap is on dryland, and not at sea. But big shelves on the float should mean a lot more sea ice.
It's scary that the southern ice cap is near an historic maximum? I thought that is what you wanted.:confused:
-
I have not been able to track an authentic measurement of the S-Cap. Only that some scientists think that the thickening deep inland is matching or more than matching the breakoffs nearer to the sea, such as the Larsen shelf. Now that's a bit vague, while what is happening on the N-Cap isvery absolute.
BTW, the NW route is wide open now. Bad news for places like....Panama.
As for dimming through particles in the atmosphere, that is somewhat troublesome, for the dimming wears off and then unleashes the full potential of greenhouse gases. Increased dimming has been considered as a man-made emergency plan in case the heating goes very far, and is basically possible, but a very rough remedy.
-
well... that's it then... the reason that the math for co2 doesn't add up is because of global dimming.. no matter what... it is our fault if the earth changes in temp... warmer or cooler.
So why wasn't global dimming (LOL) figured into those highly accurate computer models?
Face it.. they got nothing. Nothing but long range predictions that they feel safe making (who is gonna remember?) and short range predictions that are NEVER that is... never.. right. They lie and then they make excuses... people are beginning to see tho... less and less are buying into it.
Listened to an environmentalist from norway with a name I cant pronounce or spell who has a book "cool it" and he claims that kryoto is evil... it costs 180 billion a year and does nothing. I think that he fell off the co2 bandwagon,, at least to a certain extent... he says that if kryoto were strictly enforced... we would still gain the one degree at the end of the century but that we would delay it by 7 DAYS.
That is the question I asked so many here at the start... if we all slit our throats today... how much would it delay the burning to a crisp of the planet?
No one knows... this guy says 7 days a century... one thing for sure...if we were all dead.. we wouldn't have to hear the excuses when it didn't happen.
lazs
-
Get this Lazs:
"Face it.. they got nothing"
They have got one thing you have tried to discredit. The Atmosphere and seas are warming, while the Iceis melting. Now that is a very absolute thing. Like Hortlund put it, you are being pushed backwards from one point to another by pure factum. First it was "It ain't happening", now it is what?
-
nice try... no one said that the earth does not change. If the seas are warming then it is due to nature... core shift... sea floor spreading whatever because... the atmosphere has to heat a lot more than it has in order to affect the sea.
The sea warming is leading not lagging if you believe that the sea is warming... it should not be warming from the atmosphere this quickly if that is what is happening. there is some doubt that the sea is warming more than some local areas... since the measurments of even 100 years ago were rudimentary to say the least. It is fine to show a chart but then to realize that the chart is based on some ancient sailor who couldn't even read, throwing a bucket overboard....
I believe the the earth and sun will cause shifts in climate forever just as they have done up till now and that man is just along for the ride...we are a ant on a dog so far as effect on the dog.
No one says that we should merrily go about polluting areas that can't recover but... co2 is not pollution..and the atmosphere is not delicate and subject to our whim.
lazs
-
Oh.........I don`t know. According to the global dimming crowd it is the dimming that is keeping the global warming at bay to a certain point.
They claim that if pollution is reduced the global warming will increase faster.
More pollution, more dimming, less warming.
Get in gear people. Do your part and up your pollution output before it is too late. We must keep this global war.....errrr climate change at bay.
I suggest big block 400s, badly tuned, with 3 deuces and straights.
I`m up for the challenge. :)
-
Dimming particles fall out. However the warming effective components do not.
Capiche?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Dimming particles fall out. However the warming effective components do not.
Capiche?
Oh yea I do. That`s why I am calling all greenies in to keep those cards, letters and pollution at top level. We must fight this. Fire up those hotrods gents. Let`s roll.
Capiche?
-
Capiche and disagree. For polluting as a remedy is a short solution, the dimming particles will fall out eventually while the warm-causing gases will remain.
Kind of like pissing in your boot to warm up your toes on a cold day.
-
Hello! Hello! Earth to Angus. Is this thing working?
:rofl
-
Just for the whining people over global warming.. today im just gonna keep my 4 wheeler rev'd up more so it releases more exhaust and same with the truck. then eat a nice steak and maybe a nice big cheeseburger. :)
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Hello! Hello! Earth to Angus. Is this thing working?
:rofl
Sorry?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Sorry?
It was a joke Angus.
Wes gets it.
I put as much faith in the global dimming crowd as I do in the global war...errrrr climate change clowns, which is none.
-
Well, the global dimming is rather an easy thing. Well established, and tried (through volcanoes mostly) through the centuries.
1783-1786, then Indonesia in the 19th century (the biggest one in airborne particles) then Krakatau.
The indurtrial revolution with all it's soot from coal had some influence as well.
-
so angus.. the only things that change the earths temp is global dimming and co2 and.. we are the reasons for both? LOL... well.. at least you admit that we didn't cause all the dimming when we were cavemen.
There is core shift and there is the sun and there is seafloor spreading.. el nino and la nina....axis tilt...no one knows what mother nature and god will do with those things next year much less 100 years from now...
No matter what direction we go in.. it could be the wrong one... even tho I believe that no matter what we do.. including mass suicide.. we won't affect anything more that a miniscule amount... it may even be that the half a degree we make colder or warmer by spending untold billions and starving millions is exactly the opposite of what needs to be done...
The planet has not warmed for 7 years at least. Solar activity is down...if we are headed for another ice age in 100 years... why would we be trying so hard to help it along by taking away another half a degree or so?
Normal fluctuaions... the margin of error.. all are more than the most dire predictions of what we are, or can, cause.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
Well, the global dimming is rather an easy thing. Well established, and tried (through volcanoes mostly) through the centuries.
1783-1786, then Indonesia in the 19th century (the biggest one in airborne particles) then Krakatau.
:rofl :aok
Thank you.
-
Lazs:
"so angus.. the only things that change the earths temp is global dimming and co2 and.. "
Don't put words in my mouth. And then realize that both dimming and CO2 do affect global temperature. Just like opening and closing your car window does affect the temp inside it.
And CO2 (as I have stated often before) is nothing compared to what methane is capable of....
-
angus...it is not so much that you are claiming that opening and closing your car window is affecting the temp inside the car as you are saying that opening and closing the windows in your car is affecting the temp of the planet.
Both statements are of course... fact...
it is just that one of them is hardly worth getting upset about.
lazs
-
Try to shade them windows with aluminum foil :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
Try to shade them windows with aluminum foil :D
Figured you was using all of that for your hats. :)
-
Only know sixpencers and tinhats :D But with Alcoa all over the turf, we do have a lot of foil around :D
-
angus... my point exactly.. if someone told you that you had to cover all your car windows with tinfoil to stop the heat from getting out and causing global warming... you might understand how I feel about co2 and what has to be done to "stop man made global warming".
lazs
-
Tinfoil would stop the heat from the sun getting IN. The glass keeps the air heated by the sunrays from getting out.
We have special glass in our house, a so called K-Glass. It lets the heat easier in than out.
A manufacture with applied physics, acting on the knowledge on how greenhouse effect works.
So, in my example, tinfoil cover would work like dimming (components from volcanoes like i.e. sulphur do that, the effect being that the sunrays do not reach the surface to heat) while darker surface (such as sea vs ice) will trap the heating effect, and then certain components (such as the effect of my living room window, C02, Methane etc) will bounce the heat back in.
I do not understand your "feelings" about the whole deal as any other than a hot-headed denial. Mine are different, - some concern about the whole business, with growing scepticism on the deniers, since their forts seem to be falling one by the other like Hortlund so promply put it.
-
I had an email in this morning which is being sent around to any company involved in the reinsurance industry. Lots of discussion and analysis on the effect of global climate change on the insurance industry.
If this whole GW thing was just hype as most seem to believe why would global reinsurance companies be concerned at all?
I suppose I'll just do what I always do and refer the very stupid people in the business of insuring catostrphic risk to this BBS so that you guys can educate them.
:rolleyes:
-
I didn't know anyone was arguing that the globe was not warming up. As far as I've seen here, I think everyone agrees that it IS warming up.
What you folks have chewed on, mauled, swallowed and regurgitated for these hundreds of posts is the cause of the warming.
That question, I suspect, will never come to any mutually agreed upon answer.
But feel free to continue on and try to break the record for number of posts in a thread. Does the Voss thread still hold the record?
-
Originally posted by Toad
But feel free to continue on and try to break the record for number of posts in a thread. Does the Voss thread still hold the record?
So you are saying, "It's Voss stupid!" or have I misinterpreted?
-
Originally posted by Toad
I didn't know anyone was arguing that the globe was not warming up. As far as I've seen here, I think everyone agrees that it IS warming up.
What you folks have chewed on, mauled, swallowed and regurgitated for these hundreds of posts is the cause of the warming.
That question, I suspect, will never come to any mutually agreed upon answer.
But feel free to continue on and try to break the record for number of posts in a thread. Does the Voss thread still hold the record?
Was this in response to my post?
Might as well say "we" as opposed to "you folks"....no need to distance yourself from the plebs old chap.
;)
-
Well, Curval, add up my GW posts and your GW posts in this thread and tell me which one of us is beating a long dead quadruped into atomised vapor with a nine iron.
28 pages on something that won't be definitively answered here or probably anywhere in the next 250 years.
But hey... go for it. See if you guys can get to 100 pages.
-
Ummm....Toad, that was my first post and your second for this thread.
Interesting huh? You automatically jumped to the conclusion I was beating a dead horse.
-
Toad:
"I didn't know anyone was arguing that the globe was not warming up. As far as I've seen here, I think everyone agrees that it IS warming up."
Well, just a few months back you had folks debating the warming. Calling it local. This was the core of Hortlund's example of the deniers forts falling one after the other.
Now, on this thread, you still can observe how there is confusion thrown around about how or IF a greenhouse effect works etc etc. Then you will also see unsupported claims about the S-Pole increasing in mass as a contrast with the melting on the N-Hemisphere.
I will leave it as a teaser for you to ponder on why the N-Pole can melt away as NOW, while the S-Pole cannot be gaining mass. Very simple solution actually.....
-
I'm sorry Curval; I must have mistaken this for one of the many other global warming threads.
I didn't bother to check; I'm sure your numbers are correct.
Can we both agree that this topic is pretty well worn out on this BBS?
-
Angus, would you agree the basic argument, local or global, has been whether or not the warming is attributable to mankind?
If so, I think you'd agree that question will not be settled here.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'm sorry Curval; I must have mistaken this for one of the many other global warming threads.
I didn't bother to check; I'm sure your numbers are correct.
Can we both agree that this topic is pretty well worn out on this BBS?
It is absolutely worn out...which is why I didn't post in this thread until today. I would not have posted at all if I didn't just receive the email I mentioned a few minutes before looking at this thread.
Now...if lazs would stop posting in GW threads I'm sure we'd see the end of this topic for quite some time.
-
Well, the longest journey begins with a single step.
I promise not to make any more posts in any thread based on determining if GW is manmade or a naturally occuring cycle.
Will you take the pledge? ;)
-
curval... are you saying that it is unusual for insurance companies to look at all possibilities of disaster no matter how remote? Also... possible profit and loses?
angus... no one is saying that the planet does not heat and cool from time to time... it was very hot in the 30's got cooler in the 50's and then hot again for a while and it has not heated up for the last 7 years or so...
None of this has anything to do with man made co2 however except in the most minor way...
far from the "deniers" being the ones who are being shot down it is the alarmist and hand wringers who's predictions and "science" are being shot down with every day...
So far as the man made global warming alarmists and their long and short range predictions go... there is only one difference between their long and short range predictions.... we get to see the short range ones being proven exaggerated and wrong a lot sooner.
lazs
-
I, Curval, do hereby promise not to make any more posts in any thread based on determining if GW is manmade or a naturally occuring cycle.
Sorry lazs...a promise is a promise.
:)
-
curval.. perhaps I have missed it but...
I don't recall you ever saying if you thought it was man made or natural or... even if it was a combination. I don't recall you ever saying that it was a man made event that would reach disaster proportions if we didn't so something.
lazs
-
terror i ageree with u on this. man made global warming is a bunch of ********
-
Originally posted by Toad
Angus, would you agree the basic argument, local or global, has been whether or not the warming is attributable to mankind?
If so, I think you'd agree that question will not be settled here.
It has been debated whether there is a global warming at all, and recently claimed that the S-Pole gains a lot of mass while the N-Pole is now considered to be melting along with the majority of glaciers on the N-Hemisphere.
(in our country all but 2 small ones)
Hence my teaser, which would be nice to see you thinkers respond to:
"I will leave it as a teaser for you to ponder on why the N-Pole can melt away as NOW, while the S-Pole cannot be gaining mass. Very simple solution actually....."
;)
-
I'm wondering if all those who vociferously nay say global warming will publicly admit their error when the time comes?
-
angus... what people are saying is that the globe warms and cools no matter what we do but that it is not warming at the alarming rate that the hand wringing, "will hoax for dollars" grant chasers have said..
seems that every month.. they have some excuse as new data comes out... seems that the globe is not warming in the last seven years... seems that the sun actually does lead the rise and fall... seems that the hottest years in recent history were in the 30's... seems that the oceans aren't rising 30' any time soon..
The only difference between their long range and short range predictions is that the short range ones are proven wrong that much faster.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Hap
I'm wondering if all those who vociferously nay say global warming will publicly admit their error when the time comes?
How will we know when that time is? Let me know and I'll mark it on my calender.:rolleyes:
-
hap... we have had 7 years of no warming. isn't it about time to admit that co2 (which has not gone down) is not doing all the work here?
How many years of the hoaxers bad predictions will it take before you admit that they were.... at least.... greatly overstating their case?
lazs
-
(http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif)
No warming for seven years :rolleyes:
-
I'm all in favor of supporting global warming.:aok
-
Lasz, - I find nothing correct in your post. Here is the bulk of it:
(numbers to make points more seperable)
"angus... what people are saying is that the globe warms and cools no matter what we do but that it is not warming at the alarming rate that the hand wringing, "will hoax for dollars" grant chasers have said..
seems that every month.. they have some excuse as new data comes out... seems that the globe is not warming in the last seven years... seems that the sun actually does lead the rise and fall... seems that the hottest years in recent history were in the 30's... seems that the oceans aren't rising 30' any time soon.."
1. What people?
2. N-Hemisphere warming seems to come at an alarming speed and well superceeding the predictions of your stinkingly rich hand wringers. (never met one BTW. The only money in global warm issue that I know of is signing up for one of the oil companies)
3. "seems that the globe is not warming in the last seven years".
Hmmm. Well, 25% of the northern icecap just kissed goodbye last year, breaking all known records from millions of years. That was just last year. I would like to see data of your seven years, as well as you trying to use your brain instead of cut&paste or beliefs on my riddle :D
As well as that, there has been a question shortly above on this thread of whether anyone was at all doubting the occurence of global warming. So here you go :D
4: Just for the fun Lazs...."we have had 7 years of no warming"
Who are "we"? Because the most had 7 years of quite some warming....
-
SSDD :rofl
-
Good to see, Jacka1, that your day is good :p
-
angus... Oh wait... we are now saying that local climate is the same as global temp? You gotta keep me straight on the rules if you are going to change em all the time.
The best I can tell.... within the limits of margin of error... the average global temp has not risen in the last 7 years and has even dipped a little.
2 billion dollars a year is handed out for "computer models" of the man made global warming hoax... this is only the tip of the grant iceberg.
and... as was pointed out... more and more of the published peer reviewed scientific papers are getting sensible and fewer and fewer are saying that man is causing global warming with only 6% saying we are causing it enough to be a catastrophe.
basicly... if we are helping it.. we aren't doing enough to matter... one way or the other.
lazs
-
Gimme a link on that. Because massive Ice melting does not occure during cooling. Air temps are up, ocean temps are up, and Ice is melting faster than predicted. That is the whole sum.
As for Antarctica gaining a lot, why is SL rising?
-
(http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/TempSmall.gif)
Linkie:
http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2004.htm
The last years....
"These record-breaking readings, which come from the global series maintained by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, continue a trend of rising global temperatures. The average temperature of 14.01 degrees Celsius in the 1970s rose to 14.26 degrees in the 1980s. In the 1990s it reached 14.40 degrees. And during the first five years of this new decade, it has averaged 14.59 degrees Celsius. (See Figure 2.)
In fact, the five hottest years on record have all occurred within the last seven years. Of these five, 1998 was the warmest year on record, with an average global temperature of 14.71 degrees Celsius. "
-
More of the "cold" last years:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/recordtemp2005.html
2005 tied 1998 as the hottest year, - 1998 was the year of the El Nino:
"The year 2005 exceeded previous global annual average temperatures despite having weak El Niño conditions at the beginning of the year and normal conditions for the rest of the year. (El Niño is a period of warmer-than-average sea surface temperatures in the east-central Pacific Ocean that influences weather conditions across much of the globe.) In contrast, the record-breaking temperatures of 1998 were boosted by a particularly strong El Niño. "
Then the Oceans:
"Oceans comprise 97 percent of Earth's water. They have an average depth of approximately 13,000 feet (4 kilometers). It takes a great deal of heat to raise the temperature of this huge body of water, and the oceans have absorbed the bulk of Earth's excess heat over the past several decades. (See figure, "Estimates of Earth's Heat Balance.") From 1955 to 1998, the upper ~9,800 feet (3,000 meters) of the ocean have warmed by an average 0.067 degrees Fahrenheit (0.037 degrees Celsius)"
So, they are warming. Remember how massive they are compared to the atmosphere. One thing for realization:
" For a hypothetical example, if the average temperature of the world's oceans increased by 0.18 degree Fahrenheit (0.1 degree Celsius) and this heat was transferred instantly to the atmosphere, the air temperature would increase by about 180 degrees Fahrenheit (100 degrees Celsius). "
As for those "normal" swings and Glacial areas....
The extent and duration of frozen ground have declined in most locations. Snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has declined about five percent over the past 30 years, particularly in late winter and spring, and the freezing altitude has risen in every major mountain chain. Alpine and polar glaciers have retreated since 1961, and the amount of ice melting in Greenland has increased since 1979. Over the past 25 years, the average annual Arctic sea ice area has decreased by almost five percent and summer sea ice area has decreased by almost 15 percent. The collapse of the Larsen Ice Shelf off the Antarctic Peninsula appears to have no precedent in the last 11,000 years.
This one even needs an update, for the record melting year happens to be NOW.
-
Roses are red
Violets are blue
I`m Schizophrenic
and so am I
-
Now did Kurt Vonnegut put this:
Roses are read
And ready for plucking
You're sweet sixteen
And ready for....highschool
:D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
angus... Oh wait... we are now saying that local climate is the same as global temp? You gotta keep me straight on the rules if you are going to change em all the time.
The best I can tell.... within the limits of margin of error... the average global temp has not risen in the last 7 years and has even dipped a little.
2 billion dollars a year is handed out for "computer models" of the man made global warming hoax... this is only the tip of the grant iceberg.
and... as was pointed out... more and more of the published peer reviewed scientific papers are getting sensible and fewer and fewer are saying that man is causing global warming with only 6% saying we are causing it enough to be a catastrophe.
basicly... if we are helping it.. we aren't doing enough to matter... one way or the other.
lazs
As par for the course laz, you rehash BS thoughts that have already been soundly defeated. I believe someone about 100 pages back took the time to check out your "only 6% 'of papers say we are causing global warming enough to be a catastrophe, (pure BS) and showed a statistical breakdown on the volume of work which was available on subject. Obviously, they wasted their time replying to your lunacy.
I also want to see some substantive backup for your 2 billion dollars a year is given out for computer simulations on global warming.
But, alas, you won't reply with anything even masquerading as a viable source.
And, Laz, honestly, someday you really need to learn how science ACTUALLY WORKS. Tip of the grant iceberg... that's incredibly laughable.
-
angus.. the article you show is outdated.. in "man made global warming alarmist" circles... a year is outdated considering all the exaggeration...
For instance.. the hottest years were in the 30's.... hotter than 98. 98 itself was caused by el nino... nothing to do with some sort of co2 peak.
Even the chart you show shows a leveling... a drop even.. in temp. You need to get over the fact that ice is melting in your area.. we are talking global here. the ice is thicker in the south. it all works out.
Moray... are you unable to read? there is links to the article.. both I and the global warming acolyte linked to it. Only 6% of the peer reviewed articles said that man was doing enough to cause a catastrophe. another large body thought that we were "contributing" but many more felt that we could not have any effect that would be noticeable.
The trend is real... more and more scientists are speaking out about how exaggerated and weak the whole man made global warming theory is. A google search a couple of years ago found almost total agreement that the world was gonna burn to a cinder by mans own hand and.... real soon.
Now... it is easy to find articles that explain in simple (and often not so simple) terms just why the math doesn't add up.
lazs
-
The Ice is not thicker in the south since SL is rising.
Melting of floating Ice does not raise SL....
98 with El Nino has been matched with 2005 without the El-Nino effect. Now last time I checked that was not 7 years ago....
-
http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/Events/Seminars/file_25825.pdf
-
pretty good article... I was struck by the fact that 86% of the doubling of co2 has already happened for which only a 0.6-0.8 degree warming has happened... and that is if you are silly enough to think that all warming is because of greenhouse gas...even tho... everyone admits at least some other natural causes.
This is so far below predictions.... below the computer models that some excuse had to be given... the alarmists say that it is the "aerosol" effect (human too of course) that is causing the earth to not heat like the models predict... they do admit however that they do not understand the "aerosol" effect.
A statement that does not get challenged tho... and... this is interesting...
"Records of the hadley centre, for example, show that there has been no warming trend in global average temperature for the last ten years."
It is also fair to note that the models for the last 20 years have been accurate except for they read higher than the actual temps... the models do differ wildly from actual satelite data once you get to about 2001... at that point the defenders of the greenhouse theory convienently leave out the computer predictons which would show that they were way too high... if you took that margin of error and projected it...
Point being.. they keep predicting higher and higher temps for decades and even the next century... they were ok for the first 20 years but.. the warming trend was pretty apparent in any case.... now.. the trend is toward a flattening...even a cooling and the models just keep going up... mother nature isn't co operating sooooo....
It must be aerosols... yeah that's it... even tho they admit they have no idea how that could be.
Hopefully... we can delay long enough so that the models diverge even further from reality so that we don't waste a bunch of resources.
Co2 math doesn't work out and that is all there is too it. No computer model now can model the earth. If el nino and solar activity and sea floor spreading and axis tilt and even.... clouds... they don't even model clouds! if those things aren't (and can't really be) modeled.. then you have no model...
Your model tells you only what could happen if you changed one thing and nothing else interacted with that.
lazs
-
Well, the Ice math more than works out. That is, while air temp may not have been going up as predicted (?), ocean temp and Ice melting are ahead of predictions, especially the ice.
That is naughty, for as pointed out, the mass of Ice and sea is vastly above the atmosphere mass.
-
Climate change linkie ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDIP71Lviys
-
SSDD......................... .......Part 2.
-
Oh, Stephen Fry is on ...my side as well :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDIP71Lviys
-
My neighbors argument is "even if it turns out were wrong about global warming being man made, we are right"
At first I wasn't sure how to answer that arguement, but after having to listen to that answer several times over the last quarter I asked him "do you believe in science?" his answer "of course"
Then this is how it works "Even if your wrong about global warming your wrong according to science"
This from a guy who's carbon footprint must be the size of several grape apes...
Why do you think its called greenland?!
TJ
-
Well, you don't have to worry about being wrong about "global warming", for it's sort off...quite well scientifically established. Except if you ask Lazs.
Since the promoted countermeasures are basically to reduce absolute squandering of energy and resources, as well as trying to reduce pollution, Fry's point was simply that those measures don't hurt. And what he does not mention is that we can't go on like this very long anyway. So, roll up sleeves and off to the job!
-
angus...you need to realize that air temp could not be melting ice in the water and air temp (man made global warming) could not be affecting the oceans yet..
If the oceans are heating... it is not man made.
read moots link... you will see the computer model predictions... you will note that while real data continues.. computer model data stops at 2001... as soon as they tweak the parameters to explain the leveling off and cooling they will publish the "predictions"
Note how well the computer model "predicted" the el nino spike in 98.. how did it do that? that was amazing.. they did it by waiting till 2000 to predict it.. they added an el nino and got the spike..
So far.. all they can do is adjust the model to match what has already happened.
Don't believe me??? where is the computer model prediction for next month? show me the link? next year? the next 10 years month by month?
You won't find it cause they won't publish it. They simply can't predict anything because... their are too many variables.... water vapor and clouds and aerosol effect are all huge and they admit that they know little or nothing about these things.
The average American doesn't really care... the weather is fine but it is getting on toward winter... we will be wanting a few degrees... and... wait till the socialists tell Americans they want a half a buck tax on gas to fund the evil "man made global warming"
then people will care... then the alarmists will be called to task on their junk science... probly lynch the buggers.
Truth is ... co2 is not a pollutant and a few more degrees in temp is infinitely better for us and the planet than a few less... we are fortunate to live in a period of warming instead of cooling.
No bad things have happened nor... will they with a few more degrees or a few more ppm of co2 we will simply be warmer and have more food.
lazs
-
Well, the Icecaps seem to be at historics low (since mankind), 2005 without el Nino levelled the Nino year of 1998, Sl is rising and has risen while ocean temp has gone up....what do you need?
Does atmospheric warm increase suffice to melt ice in water? Make a test, put a cube in a glass of whisky in a darkroom and wait....
Anyway, the so named countermeasures are something I see as a good thing in general.
1. Since we cannot use fossil fuels forever, not even for a fraction of the time we have been around as Homo SAPIENS, all efforts to find alternative sources of energy are a good thing.
2. Same goes to saving and increasing efficiency.
3. Pollution reducing, - well, I say yes.
4. Land management? oh my!
5. Ladies rights. see other thread :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
So, roll up sleeves and off to the job!
Be more like open your wallet and prepare to be boarded...................or simply put, bend over.
-
What fossil fuel is it that your descendants are going to buy in decades to come?
I bet that they're muttering something about them stupid ancestors while paddling their bikes 20 miles to work :D
(at best)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Truth is ... co2 is not a pollutant and a few more degrees in temp is infinitely better for us and the planet than a few less... we are fortunate to live in a period of warming instead of cooling.
No bad things have happened nor... will they with a few more degrees or a few more ppm of co2 we will simply be warmer and have more food.
lazs
Hmmm...so there it is. The admission it is warming from Laz.
Now Laz... go look up orbital mechanics and cross reference it with global climate change. You will find that our planet's orbit swings out every ten thousand or so years, ever so slightly, and the global climate cools down.
Our last ice age ended roughly 11,000 years ago... we should be sliding into a cooling period as of now, not a warming period.
Also, find me anything that says warmer=more food, on any scale. Usable land may go up slightly, but so would aridity, which would balance it. Also, in the oceans, warmer temperature would DECREASE productivity, as warmer water holds less oxygen. This fact is something I know an aweful lot about. Cold water is 1000x more productive than warm. I would postulate that there may be a small initial rise in global productivity, then a drastic drop off as the seas lost the ability to quickly produce base organics, due to warming
-
I should be happy with a slight warming, which BTW has manifested itself within my lifespan, mainly with peaking summer temps and short winters. My country in seeing increased crops and more possibilities in the flora.
However, if you go down to the warm-temperate climates, that is not the case.
And for the productive cooler seas, - yuppy. Hard to understand maybe (we are not fishes), - but as a fisherman I will verify this. The grounds on the northern seas are rich for instance. Heck, I spent the best part of a month fishing above the polar circle, and was amazed by the catch and it's variety. Still big codfish, and a very impressive catch at great depths (we went down to 900 fathoms).
As a sidenote for you WW2 geeks, there are many wrecks in our area, and HMS HOOD was on our charts. Normally the trawlers try not to go too nearm - lots of steel down there that will shred or destroy nets, as well as active explosives.
I lates went on another ship on the southern grounds. My skipper once fished a 500 lbs aircraft bomb, which was defused and later blown up on land. Standard routine. It was some 50-60 years old, and had rolled along with the nets and catch for enough time to look polished!
-
moray... I am well aware of that. give it a minute fer chrisakes... the global temp has not gone up and is actually cooling for the last 7 years or so... what do you want, a huge jump? we will go into a cooling trend and there is nothing man can do about it.
Other factors may slow or speed it up... seafloor spreading... core shifts... el nino/lanina and yes... solar activity. it is not something that you can predict to the decade or even century.
But... what of those predictions? look at the computer models... nothing since 2001 (those were made in 2006 after adjustments to the model) and nothing till 2050 or so... nothing for next year or the year after or the year after... and why not? because... it hasn't happened yet... they only predict after the event of long into the future.
every time they try to predict next year they get burned. Easy to say why it was the way it was 10 years ago with a model.. just tweak the parameters till the data comes out matching the real numbers. Try to use those parameters for next year tho and....
and angus... how much has the ocean risen? 30- feet? the dreaded planet killing 30 feet? or... is it the 2" that is... oddly enough.. right at the margin of error?
So what is so bad about co2? it has increased crop production by as much as 15% how is that pollution? Why is the ocean heating more than the air could possibly cause?
lazs
-
2005 very hot. If you would add Nno on top of it, you have something quite interesting.
Ice meltings: all record breaking.
Ocean temps: warming.
Wait and see yes.
-
who has been hurt? food production up 15%.. the only effect of more co2 that I can see.
went to the beach... high tide water mark was the same as it was 100 years ago... if the the oceans were rising 2 inches... wouldn't every town at sea level be under 2 inches of water? wouldn't all of the 2 inch tall people who are too dumb to take a step back be drowned already?
If we are supposed to be in an ice age by now... shouldn't we be thanking every industrial nation on earth for keeping us out of it?
and.. what does it matter? it is not too hot now... could even be hotter and things would be better.. and.. since man controls the climate of the planet...
if it gets too hot... we will simply increase the aerosol effect and cool it down.
Why all the panic?
lazs
-
You have been claiming that we do not affect and have not the power for warming the atmosphere. Now you take for granted that we can cool it down just like that?
It has taken us hundreds of year to enter the debateable man-made warming. You don't just switch off like that...
Your tidemarks will not tell you much. Well the tide is not as visible in all the world, - where the difference is very big, you will see this earlier.
Anyway, bottom line is that Sl has gone up. In some places it is more evident than others.
As for the Ice age, - well it didn't kill mankind, but you would not live on Venus....
-
How hot will it be next week? What? Can't tell within 90% accuracy yet you claim that our temperature will rise a couple of degrees within the next 50 years? Where can I get that computer model? I want to go fishing next week damit! :furious
Angus - I'm a member of the green party. I'm greener than most tree huggers yet I've come to the realization that most 'green organizations' promoting this global warming crap are just after our money. That graph you posted -ummm... how accurate was our temperature recording back 150 years ago? Couple of degrees off perhaps? (almost a certainty)
The green party is split between chasing CO2 vs the unsustainable mass consumption of our natural resources. If it was up to me, I'd be after the consumption because China and India are adding just as many people to the middle class (the biggest consumers) each year than the entire middle class populations of Canada and the USA (Canada has one of the worlds largest middle class). Think our garbage problems are big? Imagine their waste of products and resources in 20-30 years!
Being concerned for our environment does not mean chasing down CO2 (correlation) versus the unsustainable destruction of our planets natural resources and wildlife habitat (causation). I can prove the destruction within 99.9999% accuracy. With CO2, it's easily discounted, smashable, and deniable. Even the Kyoto accord is nothing more than a aid package for poor nations wrapped up in CO2 credits.
Perhaps this whole correlation CO2 stuff is the tail wagging the dog. It's not what we really want as green-minded environmentalists.
Anyway Angus - your intentions are valid vet the data is too easily disproved. I think perhaps if we could move away from CO2 and onto more sustainable resource management, efficient and effective recycling programs, and hold companies that have a negative environmental footprint accountable with taxes and incentives to clean up is the way to go.
-
I'm willing to bet that no one can agree on what the middle class is alone the temperature and man created the middle class.
-
Originally posted by Mister Fork
Anyway Angus - your intentions are valid vet the data is too easily disproved. I think perhaps if we could move away from CO2 and onto more sustainable resource management, efficient and effective recycling programs, and hold companies that have a negative environmental footprint accountable with taxes and incentives to clean up is the way to go.
Yea, that`s the ticket. If one scam don`t work, go for another.
Who do you think the cost of those tax dollars will be passed down to?
-
Jackal1 - In the long run? Your children, your children s children, and so on. Companies are psychopathic to begin with. So you have to:
a) hold them accountable for their environmental impacts
b) provide them incentives to clean up.
It costs a lot of money to do so and the last thing you want them doing is just to move shop to a country where there are no environmental laws (which a lot have already done).
Getback - I have no idea what you just said. :confused:
-
Huh?
Someone said this:
"How hot will it be next week? What? Can't tell within 90% accuracy yet you claim that our temperature will rise a couple of degrees within the next 50 years? Where can I get that computer model? I want to go fishing next week damit! "
hehe, you have to study metreology to be able to understand your...confusion.
:D
-
And on the forkside, most tree huggers don't have a clue what's going on, and the green market is already a non-green one on a large scale.
well, - .5 Euros anyway
-
Getback - I have no idea what you just said. :confused: [/B][/QUOTE]
What I was saying is that I will bet no one agrees upon the definition of Middle Class, which is man created and comparing that to reaching any agreement on any part of global warming (If it exists). I just stated it in the skinny version earlier.
My gut feeling about the whole thing is that it's all a grab for power, just like the Healthcare issues. MHO
-
instead of reducing their co2 6% form 1990... Japan has increased it 8% or so..
canada 22% all of the nations that signed onto the treaty have increased instead of decreased their co2... they all claim economic success as the excuse.. implying that... if they were to go broke they could meet the kyoto protocol limits more easily...
mister fork.... just like the silly co2 hoax... the green movement needs to go forward based on free market pressure and inovation... not some government clubbing.
as oil gets more expensive (we will never run out) new sources will be found.. they may or may not present their own problems.. only time will tell.
The problem the green and the socialist high priests of man made global warming have is.. not just their hypocracy and exaggeration but their message of doom... doom doesn't play well.. no message of hope... of what a world that was what they wanted would be like. just the hell it will be if we don't all start suffering right now...pronto!
lazs
-
Originally posted by Mister Fork
Jackal1 - In the long run? Your children, your children s children, and so on. Companies are psychopathic to begin with. So you have to:
a) hold them accountable for their environmental impacts
b) provide them incentives to clean up.
So....you are going to provide them with incentives by taxing the crap out of them and making it harder and harder to turn a reasonable profit, all the while passing the cost burden down to the public??????
Yea right.
It costs a lot of money to do so and the last thing you want them doing is just to move shop to a country where there are no environmental laws (which a lot have already done).
Exactly. If you start making it too tough and a pain in the backside to operate in this country, there are many, little two bit places around the globe that are on the verge of total starvation and collapse. They will welcome the large companies and industry and not give a rat`s behind how much pollution is produced. Still on the same earth........so you have just cut off your nose to spite your face. All over a ridiculous scam.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
All over a ridiculous scam.
Yeah. The Arctic Ice isn't really melting. Sea levels aren't really rising. Animal species aren't really becoming extinct because their natural habitat is now too overheated to support their life. It's all an illusion! And hey, it's not happening in teXas, and as long as gas is $2/gal, who cares! :D :aok
-
Jacka1: of children:
"So....you are going to provide them with incentives by taxing the crap out of them and making it harder and harder to turn a reasonable profit, all the while passing the cost burden down to the public??????
Yea right.
"
If you have enough global warming, you won't have to worry about your descendants at all :eek:
-
Originally posted by Louis XVII
Yeah. The Arctic Ice isn't really melting. Sea levels aren't really rising. Animal species aren't really becoming extinct because their natural habitat is now too overheated to support their life. It's all an illusion! And hey, it's not happening in teXas, and as long as gas is $2/gal, who cares! :D :aok
Me thinks I smell a mouse here. :rofl
One more time around the park, eh?
-
That's perhaps because you're a P.....,,,,err,,, a cat :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
If you have enough global warming, you won't have to worry about your descendants at all :eek:
If the world collides with a giant asteroid the same is true.
Nuclear winter...same is true.
New iceage......same.
Invaded by Mothra and Godzilla....same is true.
....same is true.
-
Well, if your descendants die of global exploitations, it may partly be your fault. Not Godzilla.
And a new Iseage would not wipe us out, while Venuse's weather system most surely would.
-
The earth has been in a constant state of change and will continue to do so. That you can bank on.
I would rather more energy and thought be put into something that would actualy make a difference without fleecing the people in a scam.
Most people will not clean up their own garage or storage.
I am not into sending more and more companies and production to places that could give a rat`s bellybutton what you are spewing forth and then having to pay the price to get it back here. Ridiculous. It`s fantasy to believe otherwise.
Do what can be done NOW to make things better NOW and mother nature will take care of the rest.
Take for example...I am appalled at the condition The Hackney Marsh has been abused and polluted. :rofl
When everyone gets their own backyard cleaned up, then come to me and discuss donning the shining armor and mounting the white horse to go forth and battle the dragons of the entire world.
-
The human race has existed as an advanced species for (milli?)seconds of the earth's time. Yet in our time, out impact on the globe is well visible. And measurable.
We are now seeing changes that are FAST. So fast, (as it has indeed been with many geographical features in "our" few years) that your great-grandkids will be able to see features never visible to mankind, - unless it turns and goes into cooling.
The earth has indeed been changing through it's 5000.000.000 years or whatever, and in an amount enough of time there will be no earth. But the last and upcoming 0.0000001% of that scale seem to be on a good stroll. We are seeing something up in the Northern Hemisphere, that AFAIK is unique for 20 MILLION years. In the meantime you see people debating it....
-
Originally posted by Angus
unless it turns and goes into cooling.
:aok
-
Yes, I know....that global temp is not stable and there are curves and swings and Iceages.......
But 20 millions of Ice history kissing goodbye in a century or two is a fast spike.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Yes, I know....that global temp is not stable and there are curves and swings and Iceages.......
But 20 millions of Ice history kissing goodbye in a century or two is a fast spike.
One of which man has no control enough to be significant. Good or bad.
As said the earth has always been in a constant state of change. Just because we consider ourself so important will not impress mother nature and her path.
-
And that really is about the last hurrah for the socialist greenies... they are having a purse fight as we speak.
The sensible ones realize that they have been used and then sold down the co2 river in order to get to a goal of making a lot of money and expanding government. The fervent ones who self flagulate and wear hair shirts KNOW that somehow... somehow.. man is guilty of something greater than killing a stream here and there... that we are all powerful in our evil.
Now.. every day... less and less people are buying into the whole co2 scam and the punitive taxation and large government and yes... the expensive grants.
The only hope left is that it doesn't cool down toooooooo much in the next few years and they get democrats in power... democrats don't care about it except for the chance to expand government and CONTROL.
mister fork is right in a lot of ways... pollution is bad.. co2 is not pollution.. you can't even make beer without producing it.... He does make the mistake of thinking that just because the models can't predict what will happen in a week or... in a year... or.. in two years... that.. somehow.. they are still accurate for 50 or a 100 years down the road.
The point is... they can't predict next year cause... they always miss some aspect... some variable nature throws at em... How in the hell many do you think they will miss in a 100 year prediction?
he was right that 100 years ago we probly couldn't get any real observed temps that were accurate in a global way for more than a +/- two to 4 degrees... we still can't truth be told... our weather stations are a joke sitting on concrete by diesel exhaust.
lazs
-
Here's an article about a proposed bill to "curb" CO2 emissions.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299419,00.html
It'll only cost a couple trillion dollars, shrink the economy by 5.2 percent over 10 years, and cost the average American family $10,800 a year in lost income; but hey...it will reduce the predicted temperature rise between now and 2095 by 0.13 percent:huh . Plus, a select group of folks will be able to take lots of money from others (carbon trading credits) without having to lift a finger. Sounds great, eh?:aok
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
The earth has been in a constant state of change and will continue to do so. That you can bank on. I would rather more energy and thought be put into something that would actualy make a difference without fleecing the people in a scam.
What, the earth is just going to magically sort itself out from the mess it's in now? Sorry, but that sounds like some kind of "God will deliver" blind faith one might expect from the bible belt. Where do you live? Oh wait...
And... why should the exploration of new forms of energy be a "scam"? Or do you have vested interests in the oil industry? Now then, where is the hub of the US oil industry... oh wait. I shouldn't have asked! :lol
The sensible ones realize that they have been used and then sold down the co2 river in order to get to a goal of making a lot of money and expanding government. The only hope left is that it doesn't cool down toooooooo much in the next few years and they get democrats in power... democrats don't care about it except for the chance to expand government and CONTROL.
Well that's a lucid response about the US government and political system. :aok: There's just one small point that needs to be understood. Climate change is NOT a "US problem". :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Sabre
It'll only cost a couple trillion dollars
Considering how much the US spends on foreign (OPEC) oil, it sounds like a good deal.
-
Originally posted by Louis XVII
Considering how much the US spends on foreign (OPEC) oil, it sounds like a good deal.
The proposed bill won't do anything to stop that. So it's trillions on top of[\i] what we spend on foreign energy. How is that a good thing? And remember, that doesn't even include the other economic impacts.
By the way, I'm absolutely for eliminating our dependence on foreign energy, for economic and security reasons. The kind of legislation discussed in the article I linked to won't help with that. Read the article, then go read the proposed legislation.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
One of which man has no control enough to be significant. Good or bad.
As said the earth has always been in a constant state of change. Just because we consider ourself so important will not impress mother nature and her path.
This is where we 100% disagree.
Look into the total man impact and say we have no influence in the last 1000 years or so...
(BTW, I rather have the opinion that it's not just the co2, and even not too much compared to many other things)
-
uh oh... even angus is deserting the co2 causes global warming scam now!
lazs
-
I have tended to call it human impact, and call it idiocy to clame that human impact as a whole for hundreds of years has no effect on global climate.
I have also been sceptic about this "co2 balancing" project.
You will find this in the threads.
However co2 does in increased measure function as a warming gas. It's just not much compared to methane with it's power.
And I have mentioned that, as far as I remember as a paralell to turning on a switch, - if human impact is enough to warm the globe to the level of the permafrost melting and releasing all it's methane, then you are going to see some really wild stuff happen. I leave it up to debate about whether it's going to be enough for a Venus scenario, but IMHO you'll be seeing a climate that you won't like.
So, - small doomsday or the real one. Wan't to take the chance?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
uh oh... even angus is deserting the co2 causes global warming scam now!
lazs
Yep. No choice. All of the chart makers and Doomsdayers are falling off like fleas off a dog`s back.
You just got to rearrange things around to keep the same cause. Doesn`t matter if it makes any sense or not. It`s a real pain to come up with a totaly new Doomsday scare.............and this one hasn`t used up it`s time slot as of now.
You can`t just sit around twiddling your thumbs and wait for the next circus act.
-
Well, IMHO it makes no sence to claim that ice melting faster than it builds does not have a relation to warming. That is nothing but a lack of realism.
Oh, and is there yet sense enough to fathom the logic about why the melting is faster than the buildup? None has answered to that challenge yet...
Anyway, logging off, and leaving for the Baltic.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Well, IMHO it makes no sence to claim that ice melting faster than it builds does not have a relation to warming.
Once again........ice has been known to melt.
Anyway, logging off, and leaving for the Baltic.
Stay safe.