Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: spammer on December 23, 2010, 07:57:49 PM
-
See Rule #14
-
Your doing good work here spammer.
Carry on, and may the force be with you.
-
*Cracks Brain Knuckles*
You asked for it, spammer. The only question is, now, are you ready for a debate?
-Penguin
-
pffft...friggin hippies . :lol
-
*Cracks Brain Knuckles*
You asked for it, spammer. The only question is, now, are you ready for a debate?
-Penguin
Just give us the short version, is it getting warmer or colder? Choose one of those words, no other comments, explanations etc :) - can you do it?
-
Just give us the short version, is it getting warmer or colder?
Yes.
-
Just give us the short version, is it getting warmer or colder? Choose one of those words, no other comments, explanations etc :) - can you do it?
yup - both :aok
-
I'm INterested.
But I choose to not be INvolved in a debate that can only lead to one place.
tis only a matter of time
-
IN before the big Freeze or this Boils over :devil
-
This thread will defINately meet an ugly demise.
-
Just give us the short version, is it getting warmer or colder? Choose one of those words, no other comments, explanations etc :) - can you do it?
well, you see? it's getting colder. this is due to things that we are doing to make it warmer, which prevents some of the warming sunlight from penetrating the atmosphere, so it is getting colder. this is proof that it is getting warmer. if it weren't getting colder, then it wouldn't be getting warmer either. :devil
-
On a serious note, what scares me is some of the crack-brained ideas "scientists" are coming up with for cooling the planet. Like pumping mass quantities of, I think it was sulfur, into the atmosphere.
-
On a serious note, what scares me is some of the crack-brained ideas "scientists" are coming up with for cooling the planet. Like pumping mass quantities of, I think it was sulfur, into the atmosphere.
there was a show on discovery about this. one of their ideas also, was to have remote "pump" ships cruising the oceans. they'd pump a mist up into the atmosphere, creating clouds to block sunlight, so that the planet cools......yet i think this would hold in more heat........
-
I've discovered the source:
(http://www.energytribune.com/live_images/Gore%20color%20F%202.gif)
-
Don't know bout any warming effects. This month we've well below average temps. Currently I'm looking at -40 degrees. Normal temps for here is -20's. Global warming..........not here!!
<S>
Rokit
-
well, you see? it's getting colder. this is due to things that we are doing to make it warmer, which prevents some of the warming sunlight from penetrating the atmosphere, so it is getting colder. this is proof that it is getting warmer. if it weren't getting colder, then it wouldn't be getting warmer either. :devil
I believe Cap has the right of it...fortunately a DHS task force exists for this very reason :huh
-
See for yourself...
Boom!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Boom!
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg)
Boom!
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/MilankovitchCyclesOrbitandCores.png)
We are at the top of a very shot natural high temperature peak. Consider yourselves lucky.
Happy reading.
-
On a serious note, what scares me is some of the crack-brained ideas "scientists" are coming up with for cooling the planet. Like pumping mass quantities of, I think it was sulfur, into the atmosphere.
Ah! you want to dump sulfur in the atm? Just dump a couple of Hydrogen bombs underground inside a bunch of sleeping overdue volcanoes and lets trigger the bastages. Want to pollute/thicken the atmosphere? Better do it with style and a bit of radiation :noid
-
Ahem, it is now referred to as "Climate Change." Global Warming was found to be a crock.....
-
I don't want to debate anyone, I just want your money. You guys are insensitive and uncaring. I can put together a team of experts that can solve all the the worlds problems, but, "I need your money".
I'm just trying to figure this all out and it would help if I had your money. According to my figures, we would be helping 345,235,111,121,342 people from dieing, Many women, children, and homeless. (only if I have your money)
Collectively we can fix this............ please send me your money.
spammer
The only barrier for a perfect world is your unwillingness not to send me your money.
-
I believe Cap has the right of it...fortunately a DHS task force exists for this very reason :huh
i thought that was TSA?
-
Spammer, you have touched something deep inside my soul with your heartfelt request. I would like to help you. I will setup a team of cold callers to knock the wealthy areas and convince people to send you their money.
Obviously I will need a modest overhead to start this process so if you want to help me help spammer save the planet please send me some of your money first. Once I have some of your money, the other charity muggers will be calling within 5-10 working days for the rest. Pat yourselves on the back. This can be your good deed of the day.
-
Ahem, it is now referred to as "Climate Change." Global Warming was found to be a crock.....
Shut up fbWldcat! You're obviously in the pay of Big Oil and just hate the Earth.
(Fade in wide shot of a forlorn polar bear, adrift on a lonely piece of melting ice sheet, hardly room left to stand. The camera closes in as a single tear drop rolls down the bears cheek.)
I weep. I weep.
:cry,
Wab
-
Shut up fbWldcat! You're obviously in the pay of Big Oil and just hate the Earth.
(Fade in wide shot of a forlorn polar bear, adrift on a lonely piece of melting ice sheet, hardly room left to stand. The camera closes in as a single tear drop rolls down the bears cheek.)
I weep. I weep.
:cry,
Wab
what about the ones falling out of the skies?
-
Let's try to get through our lives and trust the future to our sibling's.
I know, you all want to shape the future, Our Children have to deal with our mistakes and decisions.
I apologize in advance.
MERRY CHRISTMAS Everyone!
spammer
-
i thought that was TSA?
It's both! I kinda thought this was over and done with, or certainly lessened in import....nah
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/9335cfcd942ef57f8525735900404439/bbbac22b69419c0b852577f9007329f2!OpenDocument
On December 15, Obama administration officials will convene the first-ever White House Forum on Environmental Justice. Environmental leaders from across the country will attend the day-long forum featuring White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano.
This forum will focus on the Obama administration’s commitment to ensuring that overburdened and low-income communities have the opportunity to enjoy the health and economic benefits of a clean environment. The event will bring together environmental justice and community leaders, cabinet members, and senior officials from federal, state, local and tribal governments for a discussion on creating a healthy and sustainable environment for all Americans.
-
Jesus is coming back,look busy!If you happen to believe in the Bible,it would appear that things are falling into place for that great event.If you don't,then don't worry about the planet going to heck in a hand basket,because it's in the book,and that's the way it's going to happen,and there isn't going to be any thing mankind can do about it!
ID
-
The immortal George Carlin has it right, folks. Listen in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
-
Most global warming supporters like to forget that in the 1300s and 1400s they could grow grapes in England.
-
Most global warming supporters like to forget that in the 1300s and 1400s they could grow grapes in England.
List of current wineries in UK
http://www.wine-searcher.com/merchants/uk,winery,13
A modern vineyard that gets its roots from Romans planting the first vines over 2000 years ago.
http://www.english-wine.co.uk/
-
The Earth has always "cycled" it is not static, it slowly swings from one side to the other like a pendulum.
"Little Ice Age" during the dark ages significantly added to the loss of people. They had snow in June and August!
Much of the base data gathered by Gore and his Global Warming group was good. But the conclusions they drew from that data was badly flawed.
The deep ice cores showed it clearly, again and again, and again, a short sharp upward spike, followed by a quick drop into the deep freeze, then a long long long slow climb.
Global Warming was all about generating money and power, not doing anything good for the environment. Just like making all the Air conditioners, Refrigerators, etc change to a different coolant was not about saving the ozone. It was about money and power. All those cars, all those house central AC units, all those coolers all had to be replaced over time. All putting money in people's pockets that wouldn't have been there otherwise.
Ohhh and 1 day of any volcanic eruption does more harm to the ozone layer than everything mankind does all year long. Don't believe me, fine, go do the research.
But ignore the hype, find the data, draw your own conclusions. And before you believe someone, check to see who's putting what in his pockets, or who's pockets he has his hand in. Follow the money!
-
Let's try to get through our lives and trust the future to our sibling's.
I know, you all want to shape the future, Our Children have to deal with our mistakes and decisions.
I apologize in advance.
MERRY CHRISTMAS Everyone!
spammer
Our sibling's have the same future we do, since they're of the same generation. DO you mean our children's sibling's (which of course, are also our children)?
I was just finishing up with the check I was writing to you, but I wanted to get this part clarified first. I don't understand the sibling aspect at all...
-
Merry Christmas to all and to all a global cooling.
-
Its just evolutions way of selecting us for extinction.
-
I don't want to debate anyone, I just want your money. You guys are insensitive and uncaring. I can put together a team of experts that can solve all the the worlds problems, but, "I need your money".
I'm just trying to figure this all out and it would help if I had your money. According to my figures, we would be helping 345,235,111,121,342 people from dieing, Many women, children, and homeless. (only if I have your money)
Collectively we can fix this............ please send me your money.
spammer
The only barrier for a perfect world is your unwillingness not to send me your money.
VOSS HAS RETURNED!!! :rofl
-
The Earth has always "cycled" it is not static, it slowly swings from one side to the other like a pendulum.
"Little Ice Age" during the dark ages significantly added to the loss of people. They had snow in June and August!
Much of the base data gathered by Gore and his Global Warming group was good. But the conclusions they drew from that data was badly flawed.
The deep ice cores showed it clearly, again and again, and again, a short sharp upward spike, followed by a quick drop into the deep freeze, then a long long long slow climb.
Global Warming was all about generating money and power, not doing anything good for the environment. Just like making all the Air conditioners, Refrigerators, etc change to a different coolant was not about saving the ozone. It was about money and power. All those cars, all those house central AC units, all those coolers all had to be replaced over time. All putting money in people's pockets that wouldn't have been there otherwise.
Ohhh and 1 day of any volcanic eruption does more harm to the ozone layer than everything mankind does all year long. Don't believe me, fine, go do the research.
But ignore the hype, find the data, draw your own conclusions. And before you believe someone, check to see who's putting what in his pockets, or who's pockets he has his hand in. Follow the money!
people tell me i'm nuts when i say this. but the factr is that what you've typed above is 100% true and correct
-
The deep ice cores showed it clearly, again and again, and again, a short sharp upward spike, followed by a quick drop into the deep freeze, then a long long long slow climb.
you might want to check the direction of the timeline axis on those graphs ...
-
I don't want to debate anyone, I just want your money. You guys are insensitive and uncaring. I can put together a team of experts that can solve all the the worlds problems, but, "I need your money".
I'm just trying to figure this all out and it would help if I had your money. According to my figures, we would be helping 345,235,111,121,342 people from dieing, Many women, children, and homeless. (only if I have your money)
As soon as you can solve this problem first: ONEWAY NEVER HAS ENOUGH MONEY...I will send you tons of it.
Regards
-
Al Gore INvented Global Warming.
<S> Oz
-
The Earth has always "cycled" it is not static, it slowly swings from one side to the other like a pendulum.
"Little Ice Age" during the dark ages significantly added to the loss of people. They had snow in June and August!
Much of the base data gathered by Gore and his Global Warming group was good. But the conclusions they drew from that data was badly flawed.
The deep ice cores showed it clearly, again and again, and again, a short sharp upward spike, followed by a quick drop into the deep freeze, then a long long long slow climb.
Global Warming was all about generating money and power, not doing anything good for the environment. Just like making all the Air conditioners, Refrigerators, etc change to a different coolant was not about saving the ozone. It was about money and power. All those cars, all those house central AC units, all those coolers all had to be replaced over time. All putting money in people's pockets that wouldn't have been there otherwise.
Ohhh and 1 day of any volcanic eruption does more harm to the ozone layer than everything mankind does all year long. Don't believe me, fine, go do the research.
But ignore the hype, find the data, draw your own conclusions. And before you believe someone, check to see who's putting what in his pockets, or who's pockets he has his hand in. Follow the money!
AMEN!
-
<S> your great people,
After reading these posts? I can tell who works for the Government and who pays for it. I just read a document written in 1776, It was awesome, and still is.
I'm willing to fight for it.
spammer
-
yeah that makes sense. :headscratch:
-
How's that Global Warming going for you people in Europe and the East Coast? Would Warming be better than Cooling? I think everyone should be taxed more for Cooling, the crops won't grow and we have to remove the snow. I think their intent is correct, but, the Governments have spent to much money marketing Global Warming and want to recoup their investment. The Governments can save us, they just need our money.
Eventually there will be two classes of people, the Ruling Class (AKA: Gov) and the slaves (Us).
I'll Die for you guys before that happens.
spammer
-
spammer IS a spammer...
cough VOSS cough
-
I like talking about debates like this. Read through the graphs on the previous page. So allow me to ask... is the earth many millions of years old? Or is it, in fact, only about 6 thousand years old?
Discuss.
-
What is VOSS? I don't understand, I'm a old man.
It sounds great. Why would it make you cough? Maybe your taking to big of a hit. "puff, puff, pass" That's how we used to do it in the 60's.
Peace,Love, and we were wrong. I'm willing to admit to our mistakes and apologize to the next generation that we have burdened with our error's, Are you?
Free Market Capitalism without Big Government regulations will always provide the best product for the cheapest price, competition rather than mandates and regulations will always be best for everyone. You don't have to support any company you feel is polluting the planet.
If you think this is spam I can help you. Slice it thin, throw it in a frying pan with lots of Soy Sauce and Maple Syrup, Fry it up, and serve it for lunch.
After eating the spam, you will know, I'm not lying and only trying to help.
GLOBAL WARMING IS A MONEY GRAB OR VOSS!
Be careful with VOSS, it might make you cough.
spammed (I could still use some grant money)
-
What is VOSS? I don't understand, I'm a old man.
It sounds great. Why would it make you cough? Maybe your taking to big of a hit. "puff, puff, pass" That's how we used to do it in the 60's.
Peace,Love, and we were wrong. I'm willing to admit to our mistakes and apologize to the next generation that we have burdened with our error's, Are you?
Free Market Capitalism without Big Government regulations will always provide the best product for the cheapest price, competition rather than mandates and regulations will always be best for everyone. You don't have to support any company you feel is polluting the planet.
If you think this is spam I can help you. Slice it thin, throw it in a frying pan with lots of Soy Sauce and Maple Syrup, Fry it up, and serve it for lunch.
After eating the spam, you will know, I'm not lying and only trying to help.
GLOBAL WARMING IS A MONEY GRAB OR VOSS!
Be careful with VOSS, it might make you cough.
spammed (I could still use some grant money)
VOSS was a con man who stole thousands from this community years ago. i was joking about it because you were asking for money from us...
-
Thanks, was it Al Gore.
old man spammer trying to figure this out.
-
he faked making an online game and told his squad and others from the game that he needed money to invest in the computer hardware to create it. by the end of the con when he was discovered to be false he was up in the thousands/tens of thousands. iirc he was never caught for what he did.
-
LOL,
Our governments are only out to line their pockets, It's time for us to stand up and vote them out. I really don't need anybody's money, I can fend for myself. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is all I expect.
spammer
Love this country while hating our government!
-
Rebuttal:
Volcanoes cause about 5% of ozone layer damage, 15-20 is caused by other natural sources, the rest by us. Most of the greenhouse gases emitted by volcanoes dissolve in water (rain) and do not get high enough into the atmosphere to damage the ozone layer.
Source: http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2005/05_07_28.html and http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/myths/volcano.html
Response to the Ice Core controversy: The lag between CO2 emissions and temperature increase is about 800 years over a 5000 year time scale. CO2 is not considered to be the primary instigator of global warming, but there is evidence that it can accelerate the process.
Source: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
Conspiracy Theory that this is an attempt by person or persons to make money: Note that we live in a world where everything is now disposable, and that we replace items such as air conditioners and cars pretty often anyways. Add to the fact that "green" products cost more and are thus harder to sell, plus all the money you have to dump into research to figure this stuff out, plus consumer resistance to change (for example, creating the idea of a conspiracy in order to justify not going green) and the possibility of making money out of global warming kind of goes out the window. Manufacturers generally prefer to maintain status quo rather than spend the money in R & D and run the risk of making themselves obsolete.
Conspiracy Theory that Scientists are behind it all: Environmental Scientists, Geologists, Meteorologists, and Climatologists all make around 50-75k a year. They're not hurting, but they're not getting rich off of it either. Physicists and Mathematicians (most of whom don't work on global warming) top out the scientific community at about 100k a year. Having spent a lot of time with scientists my personal impression is that they are much more interested in finding answers than in making money. If they were interested in making money they could easily turn their sharp minds to other endeavors that are much more lucrative. Granted, there has been an increase in positions available for environment-oriented scientists, but there has been no major pay increase.
The idea that so many scientists would support a false theory out of greed just doesn't ring true to me, especially when the process of research and publication requires a great deal of scrutiny and peer review. Is it possible that the theory of global warming is wrong? Certainly, and the scientist who proves it is wrong would probably win a ton of awards for his or her efforts. Most scientists I know spend a great deal of time trying to shoot down other people's theories...it's pretty much in their job description.
After doing the research I've found enough counter-arguments to suggest that the current criticism against global warming hasn't conclusively disproven the theory. That doesn't mean global warming is true, but even if it wasn't, would it really be so bad if we figured out a way to not use gasoline and coal?
-
I would like to donate to charity but people who run these charities have a bigger car and than me :joystick:
I fixed the old mans roof next door to me for nothing is that charity?
The UK government is very good at present so i have been told,
-
muzzy......do a little research into what it costs(dirty wise) to build a "green" car. or anything "green". you may find that they aren't quite as green as you're lead to believe.
-
The idea that so many scientists would support a false theory out of greed just doesn't ring true to me, especially when the process of research and publication requires a great deal of scrutiny and peer review. Is it possible that the theory of global warming is wrong? Certainly, and the scientist who proves it is wrong would probably win a ton of awards for his or her efforts. Most scientists I know spend a great deal of time trying to shoot down other people's theories...it's pretty much in their job description.
I don't believe they support it out of greed, just due to unwavering ideology. Also, MMGW needs to be proved CORRECT, not the other way around.
-
muzzy
yes find alternatives but don't price the standards out of existence until you do.
If there was something more profitable than oil, don't you think the private sector would be all over it?
To subsidize alternative fuels with tax dollars, dollars no one has is ridiculous.
Global warming is not about climate change it is about power/control on a global level.
One of the first steps in the creation of this global community is knocking the US down a peg or two or three.
One of the first steps in that is devaluing the dollar....
IMHO "Global warming / Climate Change" isn't about weather or pollution at all...
-
<---- Puts AlumINium foil hat on.
I blame the aliens.
-
I don't believe they support it out of greed, just due to unwavering ideology. Also, MMGW needs to be proved CORRECT, not the other way around.
Unwavering ideology has hindered scientific research before, however nobody here has yet attacked the research which supports the theory, other than by saying it's false.
I did a bit more digging:
Here's a website showing 8 arguments against global warming: http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info/globalwarmup.html
This site points to a petition signed by 31000 scientists against global warming here : http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p347.htm
Here's a site that did some digging on the petition: http://local-warming.blogspot.com/2008/05/31000-scientists-dont-believe-in-global.html
The site basically says that none of the petition signers actually work in the field of climatology, geology, or any field that would make them experts on the subject. I googled a few of the names myself and got a couple of engineers, medical doctors and business management specialists. I wouldn't trust a civil engineer to tell me what's wrong with my liver, nor would I trust an MD with zero hours stick time in AH2 to get DrBone off my six. These people may know as little or more as the next guy with access to the net and a couple hours to kill, but their opposition doesn't carry more weight than any other person with an amateur interest in the subject.
As far as ideology being more important than fact...here's an article showing the ongoing scientific debate regarding global warming:
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=3088&Method=Full&PageCall=&Title=Satellite%20Readings%20Confirm%20Warming&Cache=False
The article points out both the research findings on the subject in question as well as possible flaws in the research. If there were an active attempt to discredit evidence against global warming, then it stands to reason there would be more of an attempt to cover up the possible flaws.
The thing is, I've been told to do my research, and this is what I'm finding: for every argument against global warming there are counter-arguments that refute the accusations, and there seems to be more questions of credibility regarding those who oppose it than those who support it.
Actually the most convincing argument against global warming is the fact that we only have 150 years of data to back it up and there may be factors other than human activity that are causing it. Personally, I doubt that we are heading for the environmental catastrophe that Gore & Co. have laid out, but I think there's enough solid evidence out there to be at least mindful of what we're chucking into the atmosphere.
-
Follow up: Yes I'm aware that a lot of the so-called green solutions we've come up with actually harm the environment more that help it. That doesn't mean we should stop trying to find solutions that do work.
-
Follow up: Yes I'm aware that a lot of the so-called green solutions we've come up with actually harm the environment more that help it. That doesn't mean we should stop trying to find solutions that do work.
WEll yes and no. the things we're doing now, we know doesn't work.
a 65 chevy, or ford through its entire lifetime of being driven makes less crap than building and driving a single <insert green car of choice> .
-
<---- Puts AlumINium foil hat on.
I blame the aliens.
you could be right.
the aliens are proporting this stuff, in hopes that we head for space. once we're in space(sensibly, not flying circles around the earth), they will make first contact.
they will then sell us technology, and rights to colonize planets.
excellent plan they have. :noid :neener:
-
<---- Puts AlumINium foil hat on.
I blame the aliens.
AFDBs are great.
-
I don't understand what everybody is so upset about. We've got a little less than two years left on this planet as it is. Party it up, make a pass at that cute chick, screw the bills, play your cartoon butt off, and get vaporized with a grin. :D
Come on 2012 ;)
-
If we're going to argue about corruption, look at the 800 pound gorilla! The oil companies have, and are lobbying heavily to make sure fuel efficiency is low! Why on earth are these guys made to look like saints? What do they do with their profits? Drill shoddy wells in extreme environments, and then cause a catastrophe!
How can you guys overlook the oil companies? Scientists, whose top earners are barely cracking 100k per year, are the swindlers? Are you kidding me?
-Penguin
-
muzzy
yes find alternatives but don't price the standards out of existence until you do.
If there was something more profitable than oil, don't you think the private sector would be all over it?
To subsidize alternative fuels with tax dollars, dollars no one has is ridiculous.
Global warming is not about climate change it is about power/control on a global level.
One of the first steps in the creation of this global community is knocking the US down a peg or two or three.
One of the first steps in that is devaluing the dollar....
Oil production is one of the most heavily subsidized businesses in America, with tax breaks available at almost every stage of the exploration and extraction process, according to an analysis by The New York Times. The tax breaks average about $4 billion a year, based on various government reports, and are preserved by the oil industry's massive political influence.
See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/aULll8
Your last two or three just sound like conspiracy theories people will say in order to influence people's emotions to make them for/against an issue and have no credibility.
-
muzzy......do a little research into what it costs(dirty wise) to build a "green" car. or anything "green". you may find that they aren't quite as green as you're lead to believe.
Can you post something backing up this statement? If you are going to mention a fact you need to post it.
-
Oil production is one of the most heavily subsidized businesses in America, with tax breaks available at almost every stage of the exploration and extraction process, according to an analysis by The New York Times. The tax breaks average about $4 billion a year, based on various government reports, and are preserved by the oil industry's massive political influence.
See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/aULll8
Your last two or three just sound like conspiracy theories people will say in order to influence people's emotions to make them for/against an issue and have no credibility.
Oil shouldn't be subsidized either. Two wrongs don't make a right. And to prevent our own drilling making us dependent on others (those that don't care for us or our way of life) for our immediate energy needs is irresponsible.
Time will tell if my tin foil hat is on too tight - I hope that is the case but current events imo say otherwise.
-
Can you post something backing up this statement? If you are going to mention a fact you need to post it.
i read that about a year or so ago. been trying to find the websites in between working on the cars here at the shop......
also.....common sense. look at what's in the cars now, compared to back then.
lets see.......most have seatbelt pre-tensioners. these are small explosive charges. one on each seat belt. then there's the airbags. then there's the plastics used throughout the car. then there's the fiberglass. then there's the lithium batteries. i forget if they're lithium polymer, or lithium ion.....but either way, they're filthy to make, and the lithium i believe reacts with the air, if it's exposed.
-
If you can find a source showing that production of a hybrid car is worse than production of normal car, then I am would consider that. Doesn't sound like it is any worse for the environment than the production of a sedan.
-
Can you post something backing up this statement? If you are going to mention a fact you need to post it.
At least this is true with the energy saving lamps, which are much more complicated to produce. Hard to say about the cars though. At least the batteries of electric cars aren't as easy to dispose as the fuel tanks (also hybrid cars will increase the amount of disposed batteries), and the electricity too has to be produced in a way or another. Even recycling requires energy and resources, which in turn will cause pollution. Apparently the massive amount of required electricity to power millions of electric cars isn't going to be produced by nuclear power reactors, since the greenie/climate hippies (e.g. the Greenterrorist organization) are against those as well. Any other way of producing electricity with the currently available technologies isn't going to make cars any greenier than oil - the cars may be greenier, but the pollution is only transfered elsewhere.
The question really is that have we reduced pollution overall or have we just moved it elsewhere.
-
If you can find a source showing that production of a hybrid car is worse than production of normal car, then I am would consider that. Doesn't sound like it is any worse for the environment than the production of a sedan.
the lithium batteries alone would make it worse.
here's a qyuicjk one.....to be honest, i didn't read much of it, as my parts for the last job of the day just got here.....i'll look more for ya tonight when i get home.
-
the lithium batteries alone would make it worse.
here's a qyuicjk one.....to be honest, i didn't read much of it, as my parts for the last job of the day just got here.....i'll look more for ya tonight when i get home.
Disputed here:
http://www.grist.org/article/dust-to-dumb/
Battery toxicity comparison here: http://www.hybridcars.com/battery-toxicity.html
The lead batteries we use now are far worse, but there is an effort to dispose of them responsibly. Similar efforts would minimize the problems with lithium.
-
If we're going to argue about corruption, look at the 800 pound gorilla! The oil companies have, and are lobbying heavily to make sure fuel efficiency is low! Why on earth are these guys made to look like saints? What do they do with their profits? Drill shoddy wells in extreme environments, and then cause a catastrophe!
How can you guys overlook the oil companies? Scientists, whose top earners are barely cracking 100k per year, are the swindlers? Are you kidding me?
-Penguin
Well...now I don't have to watch Keith Olberman
-
Disputed here:
http://www.grist.org/article/dust-to-dumb/
Battery toxicity comparison here: http://www.hybridcars.com/battery-toxicity.html
The lead batteries we use now are far worse, but there is an effort to dispose of them responsibly. Similar efforts would minimize the problems with lithium.
you do realize that lead/acid batteries do not spontaneously explode? or that damaging them will not cause them to explode, right? and that the acid is very easily neutralized, right? and that rupturing a lithium battery most likely will result in some form of an explosion or fire, right?
ok.....i dunno who started the hummer/prius comparison. try comparing a prius to a like car....such as a camry, or corolla. the prius will lose i think.
going looking now for links for raptor
-
ok...here;s a link or two.......i actually thought they were all using lithium batteries...and i think the newer ones are. the older ones used nickel metal hydride batteries.
Another thing to consider with hybrids is the battery that stores the electricity. Most hybrids use a nickel metal hydride system, which requires nickel mining, which is often done in open cast mines with all the attendant pollution that goes along with excavating large holes in the ground. Luckily, nickel metal hydride batteries are non toxic and they can be recycled, but at a cost.
A hybrid also requires plenty of copper wire for the electric motors, further increasing the actual cost and environmental effect of constructing the car. Hybrids are also commonly 10 percent heavier than a similarly sized car, which means more power has to be produced than usual to achieve comparable performance. This is why many hybrids these days are actually mild hybrids, with a generator that produces electricity as the vehicle slows down, taking weight off the alternator, allowing it to work less, and therefore save fuel. Not as much as a hybrid, but the system is much simpler and easier to produce.
Once the car is built and on the road, the popular perception is that you are ‘doing your thing for the environment’ and this is true to some extent because a hybrid will use less fossil fuel than a conventional car, regardless of the way you drive it. Remember that a hybrid will probably never match the listed fuel efficiency because of the way the efficiency test is done, and because unless you only ever drive on heavily congested streets you won’t be utilizing the hybrid system effectively. Drive on the highway, for instance, and the petrol engine will be working all the time, negating the effect of the hybrid system.
from here..... http://www.newcarpark.com/blog/68/hybrid-cars-negative-environmental-impact/
and check out this gem. i'd think that just the below bolded causes more pollution/environmental problems than a 600hp corvette causes over its entire lifetime(including the cost to build it)
Environmental Costs of a Prius
When analyzing the environmental costs of a car, the energy to plan, build, and transport the car must be taken into account, not just the car's miles per gallon figures. The Prius has two engines, gas and electric. The electric engine is made from nickel mined and smelted in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. From Ontario, the nickel is transported to Wales, UK to be refined, then shipped to China where it is made into nickel foam, and finally to Toyota's plant in Japan where the nickel is made into a hybrid battery.
from here.... http://www.suite101.com/content/environmental-costs-of-buying-a-toyota-prius-a109887
pay particular attention in the "clean diesel vs hybrid" heading.....
and this......
You may be surprised if you thought hybrids were the obvious winners.
The Honda Accord Hybrid has an Energy Cost per Mile of $3.29 while the conventional Honda Accord is $2.18. Put simply, over the “Dust to Dust” lifetime of the Accord Hybrid, it will require about 50 percent more energy than the non-hybrid version, CNW claims.
from here....... http://37signals.com/svn/posts/115-look-beyond-gas-mileage-when-making-an-environmental-choice
and here's the company that did the research.... http://www.cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/
and one last one so i can go eat....but there's plenty to read in the links......
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/10/19/study-the-toyota-prius-has-a-dirty-side-after-all-manufacturi/
-
The report and company you cited were specifically debunked in the first article I posted. Further debunks here:
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf
CMW's report is not peer reviewed, which means they aren't releasing the data that supports their conclusions, nor are they allowing other scientists to review their work. Peer review is an important part of validating any paper, and the fact that CMW is skipping this process makes their conclusions suspect. Further, the mileage used in the calculations is biased in favor of the hummer. The Hummer H1 is assumed to travel 379000 lifetime miles, while the Prius is assumed to travel only 109000 miles. This is an unfair comparison. On top of that, the conclusions are in conflict with several other papers on the subject. In a nutshell, CMW is cooking the results and a simple statistical analysis can prove it.
Oh, and lithium batteries can explode, but so can lead batteries. I didn't find any information as to which is more unstable, but they will both explode if shorted, heated, or overcharged. Most of what I read on lithium stated the chances of such things occurring are relatively small.
-
LOL,
Our governments are only out to line their pockets, It's time for us to stand up and vote them out. I really don't need anybody's money, I can fend for myself. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is all I expect.
spammer
Love this country while hating our government!
It's obvious the current Governments can't solve this problem. Please send me 30% of all of your incomes and I will personally figure this problem out.
If you feel that you can't afford this offer, maybe I can payoff enough politicans to make it law.
Good day everyone, Don't Freeze, Don't Burn.
Contributions can be sent to, and will be accepted at: I'magovclone.com (Mastercard and Visa is accepted)
Thanks for the contributions, Your saving the planet.
spammer
:noid contributions can be falsified... :noid
-
.
The question really is that have we reduced pollution overall or have we just moved it elsewhere.
:aok
-
The report and company you cited were specifically debunked in the first article I posted. Further debunks here:
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf
CMW's report is not peer reviewed, which means they aren't releasing the data that supports their conclusions, nor are they allowing other scientists to review their work. Peer review is an important part of validating any paper, and the fact that CMW is skipping this process makes their conclusions suspect. Further, the mileage used in the calculations is biased in favor of the hummer. The Hummer H1 is assumed to travel 379000 lifetime miles, while the Prius is assumed to travel only 109000 miles. This is an unfair comparison. On top of that, the conclusions are in conflict with several other papers on the subject. In a nutshell, CMW is cooking the results and a simple statistical analysis can prove it.
Oh, and lithium batteries can explode, but so can lead batteries. I didn't find any information as to which is more unstable, but they will both explode if shorted, heated, or overcharged. Most of what I read on lithium stated the chances of such things occurring are relatively small.
lead acid batteries will not explode without an ignition source. lithium batteries can.
read the rest of the reports in that link. i saw the prius vs hummer paper, and didn't read that one.
there are other links in there also....one in particular concerning something as simple as the construction of a nimh battery.
-
Grin,
I don't have a dog in this fight, but you might consider this. Batteries are not eternal; I run a five+ megawatt power plant with two and a half megawatts of battery backup. My batteries are in a climate controlled room, and are pampered, with continuous monitoring, and maintence. I still have a complete replacement of batteries every five years. That electric car will need all new batteries in three to six years, and it is going to cost nine to fifteen thousand dollars. That will be well over half the recommended resale value of the car, in reality no one will buy the boat anchor.
I don't care about the Green thing, I just can't afford to buy a new car every five years, you might as well invest in Hula Hoops.
My 76 Comet still runs great, and parts are still common, well except for that right side parking light fixture, going to have to make one for my self. My truck is soon to be converted to steam, where I can burn anything I want for fuel, wood pellets any one? (Grin)
Regards,
Kevin
-
batteries are great until you have to charge them...
-
batteries are great until you have to charge them...
something i've said in another thread. as someone else said, we're not fixing anything....simply moving the problem to another source...a much dirtier source.
kevin........
i've already sent 3 customers back to the dealer for new battery packs in their priuses. the oldest one was 4 years old. that customer with the 4 year old prius was the only one that bought a new battery pack. he said it cost him $4500 installed.
on the plus side, i think toyota does have a fairly complete recycling program for their old batteries.....but then again, how much energy is used to recycle these things?
the other two traded their cars in and bought normal cars. they were the smart ones.
-
This thread reminds me of the impression I got from our raid on the treehuggers.
Poor hippies are so blinded with their green glasses on that they literally can't see the forest for the trees.
Oh well, my '87 Chevy pickup is all steel and runs like a champ. With regular maintenance it should go another 20+ years.
<S> Melvin
-
i've already sent 3 customers back to the dealer for new battery packs in their priuses. the oldest one was 4 years old. that customer with the 4 year old prius was the only one that bought a new battery pack. he said it cost him $4500 installed.
on the plus side, i think toyota does have a fairly complete recycling program for their old batteries.....but then again, how much energy is used to recycle these things?
the other two traded their cars in and bought normal cars. they were the smart ones.
I''d be interested to know how much the mileage costs are for gas and electric cars. If the electricity per mile is cheaper than gas then the $4500 battery pack could still be cheaper overall. Also the electric engine is simplier in construction.
-
I''d be interested to know how much the mileage costs are for gas and electric cars. If the electricity per mile is cheaper than gas then the $4500 battery pack could still be cheaper overall. Also the electric engine is simplier in construction.
it won't be no matter what.
during that time, you've still got the standard maintenance costs. tires. brakes. oil changes.....which are much harder on hybrids. suspension components.
read up to the post i put a bunch of links in.
-
people tell me i'm nuts when i say this. but the factr is that what you've typed above is 100% true and correct
Problem is, you can follow the money both ways. Some people just choose to only follow it one way ;)
Not directed at you btw
-
The report and company you cited were specifically debunked in the first article I posted. Further debunks here:
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf
CMW's report is not peer reviewed, which means they aren't releasing the data that supports their conclusions, nor are they allowing other scientists to review their work. Peer review is an important part of validating any paper, and the fact that CMW is skipping this process makes their conclusions suspect. Further, the mileage used in the calculations is biased in favor of the hummer. The Hummer H1 is assumed to travel 379000 lifetime miles, while the Prius is assumed to travel only 109000 miles. This is an unfair comparison. On top of that, the conclusions are in conflict with several other papers on the subject. In a nutshell, CMW is cooking the results and a simple statistical analysis can prove it.
Errrrr their website answers these questions? Did you not take time to look at it? For example anyone with half a brain knows different types of vehicles have different life spans and different utlisation levels.
-
Problem is, you can follow the money both ways. Some people just choose to only follow it one way ;)
Not directed at you btw
yea i know it can. but i try to actually think a little.
in the grand scheme of the earth, we are nothing more than a speck on the planet. for us to think that we can(in the normal course of our lives) cause the planet to warm enough to make major problems is very cocky, and unrealistic.
the sun heats us, the earth wobbles on its axis, our orbit is eliptical, and i would venture that it is not a steady orbit either. top that off with the fact that more than likely our orbit around the sun may be decaying ever so slightly, and a lot of answers become evident. it is the sun.
it is not carbon dioxide(which greenery and plankton need to live on and provide us with oxygen).
-
yea i know it can. but i try to actually think a little.
in the grand scheme of the earth, we are nothing more than a speck on the planet. for us to think that we can(in the normal course of our lives) cause the planet to warm enough to make major problems is very cocky, and unrealistic.
the sun heats us, the earth wobbles on its axis, our orbit is eliptical, and i would venture that it is not a steady orbit either. top that off with the fact that more than likely our orbit around the sun may be decaying ever so slightly, and a lot of answers become evident. it is the sun.
it is not carbon dioxide(which greenery and plankton need to live on and provide us with oxygen).
Yup, the main question is that we don't know if CO2 levels are dependent on the average temperature values or if its the opposite. And that, only time will tell and I'm guessing not in our life time. Another graph shows just how in the last 40 years CO2 levels have become much higher than any natural top average for the last 400k years at least. Compare the Vostok graph to this graph below.
(http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png)
I have never been a tree hugger and never will be but when our short existence is well noticed from space (deforestation, artificial basins, cities, roads), I find it is "possible" (thus "possibly unlikely") that the natural levels have been altered at a point where "if" temperatures change at the same rate as this graph shows, then we have our answer. Still, 400,000 is a REALLY SMALL number in geological and global weather terms but there is still an obvious short term pattern in the Vostok graph which I am showing here again for ease of navigation.
(This one reads from RIGHT TO LEFT by the way)
(http://www.trackforum.com/images/WARMING/Vostok+Temp-Co2-Mh4-Dust-Solar-Glacial.jpg)
I am not wasting more time on this because this guy (http://www.trackforum.com/forums/showthread.php?130911-CO2-and-warming-...-what-the-data-shows) has it all figured out.
I quote the guy's conclusion as being also mine:
"If global warming IS occuring - it is helping somehow keep us from the inevitable tip into the next ice age ... "
-
i had totally forgotten about deforestation. that is a way(probably the main) that we can/do effect co2 levels. no trees to give us o2........but then we get more(i think) of our o2 from plankton than trees/
-
i had totally forgotten about deforestation. that is a way(probably the main) that we can/do effect co2 levels. no trees to give us o2........but then we get more(i think) of our o2 from plankton than trees/
Yes, but the way I have it figured, we should more be concerned about finding another source of energy based on the fact we don't have enough to finish off this century without starting WWIII rather than about warming/cooling this planet's atmosphere. I still think its a good thing the technology is evolving in the way it is now, but just not for the right reasons (at least in the head of the common people). Can say just the same about water/food supplies but that's another topic.
-
In a decade or 3, we wont be burning fossil fuels anymore, and the MMGW nazi's can try to search for some other malady of which Man is the cause
-
Where do yo want to live?
Low carbon heaven or Carbon rich hell?
http://www.co2science.org/education/experiments/center_exp/experiment1/figures/roots.jpg (http://www.co2science.org/education/experiments/center_exp/experiment1/figures/roots.jpg)
-
How old is this Planet? What does your 75 years matter? The Hockey Puck graph was discredited by the Author. Emails discredited the IPCC. Wikileaks discredited the US in it efforts to influence other nations to go along with our bad science. It's a money grab eveyone, the UN wants to collect money from everyone and redistribute the wealth after taking 75% for themselves and our leaders are good with that.
Think everyone.
I'm not for a World Government, Let's take care of our own.
spammer
-
Yes, but the way I have it figured, we should more be concerned about finding another source of energy based on the fact we don't have enough to finish off this century without starting WWIII rather than about warming/cooling this planet's atmosphere. I still think its a good thing the technology is evolving in the way it is now, but just not for the right reasons (at least in the head of the common people). Can say just the same about water/food supplies but that's another topic.
while i believe that oil is in fact a renewable resource(google it), i do agree that we should be looking for alternatives too.
one that i think was a decent idea was an experiment being done in norway. i think it was called the hydrogen highway. they had electrolysis machines placed along this highway, that used energy from the sun to extract hydrogen from the water. this was then used to run hydrogen powered cars. the only emission from these cars was......water.
-
WTG Cap1,
I build parts for Hydrogen generators, Ford is going to introduce the Hydrogen engine in 2012, I hope it works.
I still want everyone take care of themselves, don't rely on the Government to bail you out. Less Government and more self responsibility is the answer.
This is my last post, I'm moving on. (please let our people keep their money through their lives)
spammer
-
There already are alternative sources of energy, but none of those are as cost efficient as natural oil. We need to find an alternative source of energy that's nearly as cheap. Right now we're looking at the steep prices of alternative energy. (even with fusion energy we would still need oil in a way or another)
-
WTG Cap1,
I build parts for Hydrogen generators, Ford is going to introduce the Hydrogen engine in 2012, I hope it works.
I still want everyone take care of themselves, don't rely on the Government to bail you out. Less Government and more self responsibility is the answer.
This is my last post, I'm moving on. (please let our people keep their money through their lives)
spammer
all i can say to that...is leave it to ford to lead the way........again. :aok
-
There already are alternative sources of energy, but none of those are as cost efficient as natural oil. We need to find an alternative source of energy that's nearly as cheap. Right now we're looking at the steep prices of alternative energy. (even with fusion energy we would still need oil in a way or another)
Why?
Why do we need to find "Alternative" energy?
We have tons of oil we can drill. We should drill for it.
Let the market place sort this out.
Man caused AGW is a crock of crap cooked up by people who love to control other people. Anyone who believes that junk ignores that the data is cooked, manipulated and scripted to reinforce a preconceived notion.
Oil and Gas are great fuels and DO NOT NEED an alternative. If you want to build more nuke plants I am all for that too. If you want to damn some more rivers I am all for that too. Harness the tides as well.
The alternative energy talking heads need an alternative message.
Oneway
-
Why?
Why do we need to find "Alternative" energy?
We have tons of oil we can drill. We should drill for it.
Let the market place sort this out.
Man caused AGW is a crock of crap cooked up by people who love to control other people. Anyone who believes that junk ignores that the data is cooked, manipulated and scripted to reinforce a preconceived notion.
Oil and Gas are great fuels and DO NOT NEED an alternative. If you want to build more nuke plants I am all for that too. If you want to damn some more rivers I am all for that too. Harness the tides as well.
The alternative energy talking heads need an alternative message.
Oneway
on the nuke plants........i know a guy that has worked on building a couple. according to him........no risk of anything bad happening like did in chernobyl
-
How old is this Planet? What does your 75 years matter? The Hockey Puck graph was discredited by the Author. Emails discredited the IPCC. Wikileaks discredited the US in it efforts to influence other nations to go along with our bad science. It's a money grab eveyone, the UN wants to collect money from everyone and redistribute the wealth after taking 75% for themselves and our leaders are good with that.
Think everyone.
I'm not for a World Government, Let's take care of our own.
spammer
You hit that out of the ball park.
Anyone who has followed this with an 'objective' critical mind knows the science is junk science, and its nothing but a power and money grab.
:aok
-
on the nuke plants........i know a guy that has worked on building a couple. according to him........no risk of anything bad happening like did in chernobyl
Nuke plants are a great idea. Tons of electricity so the tree huggers so they can drive their Chevy volts...all for it.
In the meantime, our diesel and gasoline engines need fuel.
Drill baby Drill...
-
Nuke plants are a great idea. Tons of electricity so the tree huggers so they can drive their Chevy volts...all for it.
In the meantime, our diesel and gasoline engines need fuel.
Drill baby Drill...
funny thing about tree huggers....ask em to give up anythig they have that may have harmed their environemt......they won't.....
-
Cut a tree down and plant two in it's place. Wow! I'm a genius, We can call it a renewable resource. Green building materials, give me $40.00 per tree and I will give the builders a $10.00 break back in tree costs. Sorry guys, I'm back on the greed thing again. It's a government implant in my brain.
Show me the money and I can save the World!
spammie
Check it out, Ford Super Chief. Google it, no hyperlinks.
-
Let the market place sort this out.
The Market dictates that TEL is a much cheaper anti-knock additive for petrol than ethanol based alternatives. should we start putting lead in our petrol again?
-
Why do we need to find "Alternative" energy?
We have tons of oil we can drill. We should drill for it.
Let the market place sort this out.
Oil and Gas are great fuels and DO NOT NEED an alternative. If you want to build more nuke plants I am all for that too. If you want to damn some more rivers I am all for that too. Harness the tides as well.
The alternative energy talking heads need an alternative message.
Either you're trolling or you've totally missed the point. We weren't talking about tomorrow, the next year or even the next decade, but a few decades ahead. At this rate the "tons of oil" will run low eventually and the situation isn't helped at all by the chinese converting from their donkeys and bikes to cars, let alone heating with oil.
The market will sort this out, just as it has before. It will come with increasing prices and at some point there will be a market for an alternative, which isn't isn't so much more expensive anymore. It's not like the human kind will be primarly using oil for centuries ahead, even if there was "tons of oil" available.
Eitherway there will eventually be a better source of energy. Think of it as going from steam/wood/coal to oil.
-
Either you're trolling or you've totally missed the point. We weren't talking about tomorrow, the next year or even the next decade, but a few decades ahead. At this rate the "tons of oil" will run low eventually and the situation isn't helped at all by the chinese converting from their donkeys and bikes to cars, let alone heating with oil.
The market will sort this out, just as it has before. It will come with increasing prices and at some point there will be a market for an alternative, which isn't isn't so much more expensive anymore. It's not like the human kind will be primarly using oil for centuries ahead, even if there was "tons of oil" available.
Eitherway there will eventually be a better source of energy. Think of it as going from steam/wood/coal to oil.
this is an old article......
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645
http://www.321energy.com/editorials/bainerman/bainerman083105.html
http://dimensionalbliss.com/2010/12/04/is-oil-actually-a-renewable-resource/
-
You hit that out of the ball park.
Anyone who has followed this with an 'objective' critical mind knows the science is junk science, and its nothing but a power and money grab.
:aok
Careful where you think the problem is. I'm starting to think although this whole "do it for our kids and grand kids" is a scam, its still better to than to say "do it for effect in 10,000years". The economy's prosperity is the main reason for this scam to exist and will always be... But my point is that the reason behind making it work doesn't matter at all at long as it makes people work hard for it, even if a minority thinks its a scam because they simply don't have money and power.
Its so easy to control the masses all it takes is an issue with one or two scientific words and the bribed media to cry it out loud.
The science is not wrong its the people behind it - or rather the vector of information.
-
lead acid batteries will not explode without an ignition source. lithium batteries can.
read the rest of the reports in that link. i saw the prius vs hummer paper, and didn't read that one.
there are other links in there also....one in particular concerning something as simple as the construction of a nimh battery.
They only explode if they happen to short, and such explosions are rare. Will check the other links.
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/lithium-ion-battery2.htm
-
They only explode if they happen to short, and such explosions are rare. Will check the other links.
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/lithium-ion-battery2.htm
if you're referencin lithium batteries, i would offer you the suggestion of taking one outside, along with a fire extinguisher, and open it up. carefully. :devil
-
i had totally forgotten about deforestation. that is a way(probably the main) that we can/do effect co2 levels. no trees to give us o2........but then we get more(i think) of our o2 from plankton than trees/
Problem is, that carbon dioxide becomes toxic carbonic acid when it dissolves in water. That means the plankton die, too. The problem is in the air, over land and on the sea.
-Penguin
-
Problem is, that carbon dioxide becomes toxic carbonic acid when it dissolves in water. That means the plankton die, too. The problem is in the air, over land and on the sea.
-Penguin
plankton live on it....and provide oxygen.
-
CO2, yes carbonic acid, not so much. It hits all the way up the food chain as well, since the cells of all creatures must expend extra energy to balance their pH. It's not as simple as burn-and-dump, it all has to go somewhere.
-Penguin
-
this is an old article......
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645
http://www.321energy.com/editorials/bainerman/bainerman083105.html
http://dimensionalbliss.com/2010/12/04/is-oil-actually-a-renewable-resource/
I'm not talking about running out of oil, but about the demand growing too great for the supply, and also about future innovations. Even if more oil is produced deep in the earth, it still will not be as easily available in such great quantities as now, hence we'll be running low in the future, should the demand keep growing.
Eitherway the price of oil will increase with the increased demand. At some point an alternative source of energy, which now is too expensive due to cheap oil and expensive technology for the time being, will become a viable choice.
What's so bad about alternative source of energy? In the future we're sure to have better sources of energy than oil. It'd be a shame if we couldn't research a better source of energy during this century, so that it would be in mass use in the 22nd century.
-
I'm not talking about running out of oil, but about the demand growing too great for the supply, and also about future innovations. Even if more oil is produced deep in the earth, it still will not be as easily available in such great quantities as now, hence we'll be running low in the future, should the demand keep growing.
Eitherway the price of oil will increase with the increased demand. At some point an alternative source of energy, which now is too expensive due to cheap oil and expensive technology for the time being, will become a viable choice.
What's so bad about alternative source of energy? In the future we're sure to have better sources of energy than oil. It'd be a shame if we couldn't research a better source of energy during this century, so that it would be in mass use in the 22nd century.
aahh....understood.
this is why i think that experiment norway was doing with solar and hydrogen was one of the best ideas so far.
-
The Market dictates that TEL is a much cheaper anti-knock additive for petrol than ethanol based alternatives. should we start putting lead in our petrol again?
That's a canard.
There are other ways to produce fuel that will not knock other than adding lead, or federally subsidizing farmers to produce a product that is a net energy loser because they have friends and lobbyists in DC.
Ethanol is a joke.
Its use is mandated by congress, its production is subsidized in excess of 6 billion a year, and there are large import tariffs on it, further insulating the producers of it from competition. Further, unnecessarily diverting domestic cereal production and meddling in the market drives the cost of commodities that hits consumers square in the pocket book. Think corn flakes.
Conservative estimates state that it takes 1.6 gallons refined diesel fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol; net net loser.
The feds should get out of the market place and leave the ban in place of lead as an additive to internal combustion fuel in place.
Oneway
-
I have a problem with the science,
Claim 1. Average water temp has risen 1/4 a degree. By hotter atmosphere.
If you took all the power plants in the world and plugged them directly into the ocean in the form of heat it would take more than 30,000 years to get a 1/4 degree temp rise. There is no way mathematically you can heat the ocean with air, there isn't enough air in the atmosphere to do it. Especially because the air can only transmit heat to the water it touches.
Fill your tub will cold water and get out the hair dryer. Blow hot air on the water let me know how long it takes to get 1/4 degree hotter. To make it realistic use same hairdryer and swimming pool.
It is population control science. :bolt:
-
If you took all the power plants in the world and plugged them directly into the ocean in the form of heat it would take more than 30,000 years to get a 1/4 degree temp rise. There is no way mathematically you can heat the ocean with air, there isn't enough air in the atmosphere to do it. Especially because the air can only transmit heat to the water it touches.
The power to heat the ocean does not come from the power plants, it comes from the sun. It takes only a small amount of energy from you to close the oven door and let electricity power to cook what is inside.
Fill your tub will cold water and get out the hair dryer. Blow hot air on the water let me know how long it takes to get 1/4 degree hotter. To make it realistic use same hairdryer and swimming pool.
The skin layer of water will raise 1/4 of a degree very fast. It is only a matter of what you measure and which numbers one chooses to quote. This is exactly the same crap as claiming there is global warming and showing an iceberg melting on TV. The public can relate to the image, but never grasp the full picture.
Having said that, man made global warming is a scam.
-
I have a problem with the science,
Claim 1. Average water temp has risen 1/4 a degree. By hotter atmosphere.
If you took all the power plants in the world and plugged them directly into the ocean in the form of heat it would take more than 30,000 years to get a 1/4 degree temp rise. There is no way mathematically you can heat the ocean with air, there isn't enough air in the atmosphere to do it. Especially because the air can only transmit heat to the water it touches.
Fill your tub will cold water and get out the hair dryer. Blow hot air on the water let me know how long it takes to get 1/4 degree hotter. To make it realistic use same hairdryer and swimming pool.
It is population control science. :bolt:
bolded....the atmosphere does not heat the oceans.
-
it is not carbon dioxide(which greenery and plankton need to live on and provide us with oxygen).
Just FYI, trees cannot use carbon dioxide above tree level ;)
-
Just FYI, trees cannot use carbon dioxide above tree level ;)
i know. it's a heavy gas though........
-
i know. it's a heavy gas though........
Ahh yeah, I forgot, and therefore the gases that compose our atmosphere are in layers based on their weight. Got to suck for short peoplez :old:
-
At least this is true with the energy saving lamps, which are much more complicated to produce. Hard to say about the cars though. At least the batteries of electric cars aren't as easy to dispose as the fuel tanks (also hybrid cars will increase the amount of disposed batteries), and the electricity too has to be produced in a way or another. Even recycling requires energy and resources, which in turn will cause pollution. Apparently the massive amount of required electricity to power millions of electric cars isn't going to be produced by nuclear power reactors, since the greenie/climate hippies (e.g. the Greenterrorist organization) are against those as well. Any other way of producing electricity with the currently available technologies isn't going to make cars any greenier than oil - the cars may be greenier, but the pollution is only transfered elsewhere.
The question really is that have we reduced pollution overall or have we just moved it elsewhere.
Hamsters in wheels
-
Ahh yeah, I forgot, and therefore the gases that compose our atmosphere are in layers based on their weight. Got to suck for short peoplez :old:
It a well known fact that crowded elevators smell different to midget.
-
That's a canard.
There are other ways to produce fuel that will not knock other than adding lead, or federally subsidizing farmers to produce a product that is a net energy loser because they have friends and lobbyists in DC.
I wasnt talking about biofuels or synthetic ethanol as a fuel. Just anti-knock additives to petrol like ETBE. there are plenty of other additives but they all share one thing in common - they are alot more expensive than TEL. just using this simple example to make the point that the market will give you the cheapest option, not the best.
canard - thats french for duck right? :headscratch:
-
I wasnt talking about biofuels or synthetic ethanol as a fuel. Just anti-knock additives to petrol like ETBE. there are plenty of other additives but they all share one thing in common - they are alot more expensive than TEL. just using this simple example to make the point that the market will give you the cheapest option, not the best.
canard - thats french for duck right? :headscratch:
I am not familiar with ETBE but I am very familiar with MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether). MTBE was shoved down the throats of Californians by both the refiners and the green movement as the end all be all alternative to lead as an oxygenate/additive.
Normal environmental review was thrown to the wind for two reasons: The tree huggers wanted anything but lead in their typically short sighted view and inability to examine the possibility of unintended consequence, the refining industry could now take a normal waste product of fuel production and use it as a component in process and make money off of it. We had two immensely powerfully lobby groups driving CARB policy and the left wing California legislature loved the flow of cash into their coffers.
What the citizens ended up with was a carcinogen that poisoned our environment, despite the arguments against MTBE grounded in solid science and objective economic analysis. MTBE has subsequently been banned as an additive; though its proponents true to style...characterize it with terms such as 'phased out', only to be replaced by the parallel failure of ethanol.
The status quo top down centralized planning process consistently fails in their publicly stated mission and PR releases; they succeed fabulously in lining their pockets and exploiting the sytem to their benefit.
Oneway
edit: My use of the word canard refers to the anolgy often drawn between an oblique control surface of an aircraft and a tangential and meaningless argument in conversation masquerading as an honest attempt to address another point.
-
I am not familiar with ETBE but I am very familiar with MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether). MTBE was shoved down the throats of Californians by both the refiners and the green movement as the end all be all alternative to lead as an oxygenate/additive.
Normal environmental review was thrown to the window for two reasons: The tree huggers wanted anything but lead in their typically short sighted view and inability to examine the possibility of unintended consequence, the refining industry could now take a normal waste product of fuel production and use it as a component in process and make money off of it. We had two immensely powerfully lobby groups driving CARB policy and the left wing California legislature loved the flow of cash into their coffers.
What the citizens ended up with was a carcinogen that poisoned our environment, despite the arguments against MTBE grounded in solid science and objective economic analysis. MTBE has subsequently been banned as an additive; though its proponents true to style...characterize it with terms such as 'phased out', only to be replaced by the parallel failure of ethanol.
The status quo top down centralized planning process consistently fails in their publicly stated mission and PR releases; they succeed fabulously in lining their pockets and exploiting the sytem to their benefit.
Oneway
edit: My use of the word canard refers to the anolgy often drawn between an oblique control surface of an aircraft and a tangential and meaningless argument in conversation masquerading as an honest attempt to address another point.
-
edit: My use of the word canard refers to the anolgy often drawn between an oblique control surface of an aircraft and a tangential and meaningless argument in conversation masquerading as an honest attempt to address another point.
ok thanks never heard that before.
it was hardly tangential though, you said "Let the market place sort this out", Im saying that is a dreadful solution because the market maximises only short-term profit. and as this thread proves consumers arent informed enough to make rational decisions about their energy sources.
-
bolded....the atmosphere does not heat the oceans.
" There is no way mathematically you can heat the ocean with air" so thats the same as "the atmosphere does not heat the oceans"
-
" There is no way mathematically you can heat the ocean with air" so thats the same as "the atmosphere does not heat the oceans"
it bore repeating. too many people think that's how the ocean gets warmed up.
-
rgr. gotcha
-
it bore repeating. too many people think that's how the ocean gets warmed up.
But the reverse is true so the problem kinda remains :)
-
But the reverse is true so the problem kinda remains :)
what problem?
-
The power to heat the ocean does not come from the power plants, it comes from the sun. It takes only a small amount of energy from you to close the oven door and let electricity power to cook what is inside.
The skin layer of water will raise 1/4 of a degree very fast. It is only a matter of what you measure and which numbers one chooses to quote. This is exactly the same crap as claiming there is global warming and showing an iceberg melting on TV. The public can relate to the image, but never grasp the full picture.
Having said that, man made global warming is a scam.
Did you even read my post???
I didn't say that's where the heat comes from I said if you did it's called an example. If plugging the power plants directly into the ocean can't do it, neither can warm air. It just shows the enormous energy it would take.
And no the sun doesn't do it directly. The current water temp is what it is because of the radiant heat of the sun.
The claim is that the oceans are getting warmer than what we can account from direct sun energy. So the came up with a fairytail that says oh carbon emissions in the atmosphere are causing the air to get hotter than it normally would the only way the can account for extra heat is warmer air. The " normal " ocean temp already accounts for the direct sun energy.
-
bolded....the atmosphere does not heat the oceans.
Your right, that's why their claim is so absurd. Yet it is the only way they can try to claim a hotter water temp, because the temp of the water is already accounted for from direct sun energy, and if they said it's the sun that's doing it it's no longer man made. They have to says it's man made so the can legislate what we can do.
-
How do you define skin of water?
Yes it is possible to heat the skin of water so what?
Heating the skin of the ocean is even more problematic there is no way it could account for a 1/4 degree temp rise. Do the math it would take 35,000 degree air to impart enough energy to the oceans to get that kind of temp rise in about 20,000 years. I think we would know if the air was that hot
-
But the reverse is true so the problem kinda remains :)
Yes but that would mean no man made global warming! So how we solve the problem would change.
One more thing scientific thermometers are only calibrated to .1 plus or minus % error reading. That means there's no way you can accurately test a 1/4 degree overall temp change accurately. A .1 plus or minus error is almost a 1/4 degree temp differential. :banana:
-
what problem?
The problem that we are having record amounts of snow second year in a row now, not to mention -25c temperatures in August (usually it hovers around 0 to 5c. And that might have something to do with gulf stream - or might not.
-
I have a problem with the science,
Claim 1. Average water temp has risen 1/4 a degree. By hotter atmosphere.
bizarre claim. where exactly did you read that the rise in ocean temps is solely due to a rise in air temp?
One more thing scientific thermometers are only calibrated to .1 plus or minus % error reading. That means there's no way you can accurately test a 1/4 degree overall temp change accurately. A .1 plus or minus error is almost a 1/4 degree temp differential.
this is just nonsense.
-
bizarre claim. where exactly did you read that the rise in ocean temps is solely due to a rise in air temp?
Yep green house gases reflect sunlight back to ocean and lead to temperature rise.
Having said that we're having record amount of cold and I want global warming NOW!
-
The problem that we are having record amounts of snow second year in a row now, not to mention -25c temperatures in August (usually it hovers around 0 to 5c. And that might have something to do with gulf stream - or might not.
and how long ago was the last time it was like this where you're talking about?
-
Yep green house gases reflect sunlight back to ocean and lead to temperature rise.
Having said that we're having record amount of cold and I want global warming NOW!
something transparent reflects sunlight?
-
yes
-
and how long ago was the last time it was like this where you're talking about?
AFAIK highest amount of snow in recorded history in Helsinki area and temperatures were this low (at that time of the year) last about 100 years ago. Luckily the rest of the year didn't go on record cold since during winter war temperatures hung at -30 to -40. It was so cold that your pee became a frozen stick pointing in an arch from snow. From body temperature to frozen while in free fall from your genitals.. yikes!
-
so then this has happened before. this would point towards a cycling of sorts.
-
so then this has happened before. this would point towards a cycling of sorts.
The trend is hotter summers and colder winters. Don't mind summers, winters suck.
-
that's the trend now. the previous trend was cooler summers, and milder winters.
and i agree.......i'll take the summer any day......hate the cold.