Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Brooke on November 12, 2013, 11:37:43 AM
-
Sorry, guys. I strayed off topic in "Global cooling", which then got closed for being too political. (Folks there were completely civil and respectful, so well done on an excellent environment for discussion.)
Here's a topic to continue global cooling, and I promise not to stray.
Last topics in the global cooling discussion which were on topic were nuclear power and liquefied natural gas.
Pemquist had asked "Does anybody know how much energy it takes to liquefy and transport natural gas? Is it on par with extracting oil from tar sands or what?"
I think that LNG is a lot cheaper than tar sands. Getting the natural gas is inexpensive. In fact, it used to be considered nearly a waste product of drilling for oil and mostly burned off at the well head. Moving it around as gas is not very expensive, but of course the energy density of LNG is much greater than as gas. It does cost energy to liquefy the gas and costs money to keep it in insulated containers and cooled, but it's not too bad.
Overall, we can look at the cost per million BTU to compare to other fuels. Currently, natural gas is $3.6/MMBtu. LNG is about $5.0/MMBtu. Crude oil (brent) is $106/bbl, which is $106/5.8 × 10^6 BTU = $18/MMBtu.
-
Then there is the cost of gasoline, which is higher still. Gasoline where I live is about $3.3/gal, which is $3.3/gal * 1 gal/114,000 BTU * 10^6 BTU/MMBtu = $29/MMBtu.
So, LNG is only 17% the cost of gasoline (on an energy equivalency basis), and natural gas (non liquefied) is 12% the cost of gasoline.
Since you can run lots of things on natural gas (cars, trucks, buses, fork lifts, power plants, generators, etc.), because it is a small fraction of the cost of gasoline, it will probably increasingly be used as a fuel for those things. The problem as pointed out earlier is currently distribution. But that will get solved incrementally, first by particular companies converting their own trucks to LNG or using compressed natural gas (CNG) for their forklifts, say.
-
Then there is the cost of gasoline, which is higher still. Gasoline where I live is about $3.3/gal, which is $3.3/gal * 1 gal/114,000 BTU * 10^6 BTU/MMBtu = $29/MMBtu.
So, LNG is only 17% the cost of gasoline (on an energy equivalency basis), and natural gas (non liquefied) is 12% the cost of gasoline.
Since you can run lots of things on natural gas (cars, trucks, buses, fork lifts, power plants, generators, etc.), because it is a small fraction of the cost of gasoline, it will probably increasingly be used as a fuel for those things. The problem as pointed out earlier is currently distribution. But that will get solved incrementally, first by particular companies converting their own trucks to LNG or using compressed natural gas (CNG) for their forklifts, say.
This isnt going to reach the cheapest point till the strictly start making engines that run just on Natural Gas. Right now tho get is converted is expensive
-
Then there is the cost of gasoline, which is higher still. Gasoline where I live is about $3.3/gal, which is $3.3/gal * 1 gal/114,000 BTU * 10^6 BTU/MMBtu = $29/MMBtu.
So, LNG is only 17% the cost of gasoline (on an energy equivalency basis), and natural gas (non liquefied) is 12% the cost of gasoline.
Since you can run lots of things on natural gas (cars, trucks, buses, fork lifts, power plants, generators, etc.), because it is a small fraction of the cost of gasoline, it will probably increasingly be used as a fuel for those things. The problem as pointed out earlier is currently distribution. But that will get solved incrementally, first by particular companies converting their own trucks to LNG or using compressed natural gas (CNG) for their forklifts, say.
CNG is commonly used for forklifts and buses here in Europe already. Almost all forklifts which work indoors use the stuff due to the low emissions and lack of carbon monoxide in exhaust.
-
Then there is the cost of gasoline, which is higher still. Gasoline where I live is about $3.3/gal, which is $3.3/gal * 1 gal/114,000 BTU * 10^6 BTU/MMBtu = $29/MMBtu.
So, LNG is only 17% the cost of gasoline (on an energy equivalency basis), and natural gas (non liquefied) is 12% the cost of gasoline.
Since you can run lots of things on natural gas (cars, trucks, buses, fork lifts, power plants, generators, etc.), because it is a small fraction of the cost of gasoline, it will probably increasingly be used as a fuel for those things. The problem as pointed out earlier is currently distribution. But that will get solved incrementally, first by particular companies converting their own trucks to LNG or using compressed natural gas (CNG) for their forklifts, say.
Many fleet vehicles use ngas today but I don't believe its LNG. The problem is that it takes a long time to fill a tank. It its easier to target specific sub-segments at this time, such as trains, buses, fleet vehicles etc...
-
There is more to it than simply the cost of the fuel. There are other long term effects that have to be considered as well. One example often overlooked when factoring the cost of natural gasses vs gasoline and diesel is the hit the engine takes. I used to work as a diesel engine mechanic many years ago, a great friend still owns the company and we discuss this often.
His company thrives on the public buses that use the natural gas. The engines fry and heads are destroyed far earlier than should occur in a diesel environment. From what I understand, they generate a higher, and dryer heat.
So factor the cost savings and the emission gains by natural gas against the repair costs and emissions created in the transportation of the replacement parts and you don't have quite the savings in fuel cost or the environment many people think they are getting.
-
There is more to it than simply the cost of the fuel. There are other long term effects that have to be considered as well. One example often overlooked when factoring the cost of natural gasses vs gasoline and diesel is the hit the engine takes. I used to work as a diesel engine mechanic many years ago, a great friend still owns the company and we discuss this often.
His company thrives on the public buses that use the natural gas. The engines fry and heads are destroyed far earlier than should occur in a diesel environment. From what I understand, they generate a higher, and dryer heat.
So factor the cost savings and the emission gains by natural gas against the repair costs and emissions created in the transportation of the replacement parts and you don't have quite the savings in fuel cost or the environment many people think they are getting.
Engines can be designed for one fuel, but can be altered to except others with the possibility of damaging some parts.
I remember hearing that the old leaded gas engines would suffer if non-leaded gas were used. Supposedly the lead in the gas helps lubricate valve push rods and such.
-
I thought fossil fuels were used as a barginning chip :)
And thus the talk about types of fuel is the same as how many angels can sit on top of a pin :)
-
Judging by the $0.40 jump in gasoline price yesterday, it appears someone didn't play their chips well and has little chance of getting Angel to sit on his pin.
-
Finally at 2.98 over here
-
Get a smaller car :old:
-
Why are you focused on "global cooling" and a fossil fuel driven approach to achieve it? There is no data (that has not been monkeyed with or is not loaded with sampling error) that supports a man made global warming trend.
-
Yes there is :old:
-
Why are you focused on "global cooling" and a fossil fuel driven approach to achieve it? There is no data (that has not been monkeyed with or is not loaded with sampling error) that supports a man made global warming trend.
You're a scientist are you?
-
Why are you focused on "global cooling" and a fossil fuel driven approach to achieve it? There is no data (that has not been monkeyed with or is not loaded with sampling error) that supports a man made global warming trend.
I'm curious: How many peer reviewed papers have you published on the topic?
-
What is "Peer reviewed"?
You clever or somefin?
-
What is "Peer reviewed"?
You clever or somefin?
Peer Review: There's a Youtube vid somewhere that says it, and someone commented on it. :neener:
-
What is "Peer reviewed"?
It's like a pie review only more rigorous.
-
Peer reviewed. Hrumph... :eek:
Recent peer reviewed documents concerning global climate models have been shown to be incorrect and biased. Just because something is "peer reviewed" does not mean it is infallible.
The ability of any organism to survive, is directly related to it's ability to adapt to it's environment....
Unfortunately those who are involved in the fossil fuel industry are making too much money to abandon years of infrastructure and profit. We have alternate fuel sources, but none of which are "economically viable alternatives"... This is where it gets sketchy in my book. When someone says it's not economically viable, that means to me, that there are too many people dependent on their income associated with the industry to simply abolish it. NOTE: Dependent does not mean profit like a CEO, but the blue collar boys doing the actual work.
I don't know that there's an easy solution, but as we discover new ways to obtain, harness, and distribute other forms of energy, perhaps we will see a reduction in our dependence on fossil fuels.
-
That is OK then I thought people were saying there are no facts about Global Warming :old:
-
My feeling is that worrying over global warming is overblown for various reasons.
CO2 levels were five times higher than they are today during the time of the dinosaurs and 10 times higher than today during the Devonian period. Life thrived nonetheless.
Global temperatures were greater during a portion of the Roman empire than they are today.
Ice ages have historically happened periodically, and an ice age would be vastly more destructive to human life than global warming, so maybe it's good to have extra CO2 in the air.
Global warming has not been significant during the last 10 or 15 years and has not gone according to models. If it does continue according to models (which it might not), the rate of change is slow enough that humans might be able to deal with it.
Warming is not bad for all regions -- some regions would benefit.
Mankind's power sources will probably alter over time just as a result of market forces, increasing nuclear and solar.
-
Recent peer reviewed documents concerning global climate models have been shown to be incorrect and biased.
*Citation needed
Just because something is "peer reviewed" does not mean it is infallible.
Nor did I say it does, however, it certainly adds credibility to an idea if those qualified are able to confirm and repeat the predicted results.
the ability of any organism to survive, is directly related to it's ability to adapt to it's environment....
Something we, as humans, typically do not do. We change our environment to suit our desires.
Unfortunately those who are involved in the fossil fuel industry are making too much money to abandon years of infrastructure and profit. We have alternate fuel sources, but none of which are "economically viable alternatives"... This is where it gets sketchy in my book. When someone says it's not economically viable, that means to me, that there are too many people dependent on their income associated with the industry to simply abolish it. NOTE: Dependent does not mean profit like a CEO, but the blue collar boys doing the actual work.
I don't know that there's an easy solution, but as we discover new ways to obtain, harness, and distribute other forms of energy, perhaps we will see a reduction in our dependence on fossil fuels.
Can't offer a rebuttal to this, however...I whole-heartedly agree with you here. :salute
-
Sometimes peer review isn't a good thing, especially if there is an agenda. I personally enjoy seeing someone enter the fray and debunk and argue against something. If it is based on fact, it will stand up to scrutiny. Just arguing against something is not a bad thing.
For example, speaking of peer review, in this situation I was not entirely welcome at the conversation. I was clearly not in the peer group.
I sat on a planning commission for 8 years. We spent many long years master planning a region, and went into great detail when it came down to how much traffic the community was willing to accept in order to gain new housing to support the retail services that were severely lacking in the community. We designed our roads to achieve a level of service "C" at peak hours, which essentially meant you sat at a light, but you cleared it during the cycle and didn't sit through multiple light changes. That is a level that was desired and built out.
Some years later, a new council and new developers came through, and thought they wanted to open up more development in the southern most portion of town. With a maximum build out of 80k people, this effort was going to place an additional 10-12k people in an area that had a single north/south artery. Their state of the art computer model showed that there would be absolutely no impact on the roadways. Yayy and the angels sang and the people were blessed and the council was so happy that they could now build more and more. One small problem, there isn't a chance in hell that the roads could handle that. But, wait, says the mayor, the model proves it!
Now, I love a good computer game as much as the next guy, so I asked at the meeting if I could play with the model :) The engineer was happy to show it to me, as it was so flawless and precise that it could manage the data down to a single vehicle, it wasn't just some generic model that did averages and such. Oh and I was so impressed I just had to have him show us more, what a wonderful gadget. I asked, it can't be possible to modify a single vehicles action, can it truly be so? Yes oh Yes ye of little faith, watch. And behold, he slowed a car down and the cars around him slowed, changed lanes, and carried on with their little pixel lives. He was smiling, see how clever? I agreed, Brilliant says I, you really have mastered the art of traffic models. There can be no doubt that this perfectly simulates the traffic conditions, and the council was so happy that this thorn in their side actually "got it". But, I'm sorry, I just have one silly question, and I know I am not a computer scientist or an engineer, I'm just some guy who builds things. Question, I see all of the cars going up and down the streets, and then it appears like they kind of, well, disappear when they go up the on ramps to the freeways. Umm, just out of curiosity, since the surface streets kind of have to interact with the freeway on ramps, what happens if you add traffic to the freeways? Oh, well, that was unfortunate. Oops, forgot to model any traffic on the freeway. So Mr. Code added the freeway traffic at peak hours. 65mph, Sacramento CA I-5 and I-80. Hmmmm....models starting to hork up a hairball or two, seems the traffic going up onto the freeways are clogging up a bit, backing up into the surface streets. Woops, looks like it's getting a bit shakey down south a few miles.
Oh, one more really sorta stupid question for Mr. Code here. Umm, I don't know where you live actually, but at 5pm at peak rush hour, I-5 and I-80 don't actually go 65mph, they are actually locked up and more often than not are at a standstill, but just for kicks, how about we do this. One car you say? You can manipulate a single car, so how about we put one 85 year old lady in the fast lane, and let's say she's doing 50mph. Plug that in. 10 minutes later the traffic model collapsed.
If you have a room full of people who want the model to perform a certain way, you will get the model to perform. If you do not question the data going in, you cannot be sure of the results, you cannot believe anything anyone "proves" simply because they are "educated" and are saying what you want them to say. If you don't question the results, force it to stand up to scrutiny, you are not solving a thing. There is nothing wrong with the current, or any agenda being questioned. It is not offensive to question. A good plan, a proven concept, a strong argument will enjoy and even encourage you to test it, they won't hide from it or cry foul when the model is distrusted. If you want to see how truly someone is committed to an idea, challenge it.
Oh, by the way, that entire development did not occur, when a far "smarter" group of planners, elected officials and developers wanted it. One stupid question.
-
Sometimes peer review isn't a good thing, especially if there is an agenda. I personally enjoy seeing someone enter the fray and debunk and argue against something. If it is based on fact, it will stand up to scrutiny. Just arguing against something is not a bad thing.
A percentage of this community clearly doesn't know what science is, what it's for, how it works and are completely unable to distinguish it from pseudoscience. Or is it simply that having so much invested in the present system it becomes an issue of cultural expedience I wonder.
-
Hi Roc,
Your illustration kind of proves my point: You, as his peer, reviewed the engineer's model (experiment), found its holes and weaknesses, and his hypothesis (eq: "paper") was rejected.
The main concepts to peer review (IMO) are to: 1) Provide as accurate an explanation as is currently possible through confirmation of the available data and results. 2) In doing so, peer review *removes* agenda from the equation, because - as you said - If it is based on fact, it will stand up to scrutiny.
Does any of this mean that peer review is flawless and an impossible system to beat? Not at all. Andrew Wakefield showed this to all of us with his bogus, interest-conflicted paper in The Lancet regarding the MMR vaccine: The paper was published, and after further review of the data and the study itself, it was found to be deeply flawed. The scientific community rejected the results, the paper was retracted, and "Dr." Wakefield was stripped of his license to practice (That doesn't stop him from parading his nonsense throughout America, unfortunately, but that's another topic...)
The moral of the story is that while no system may ever truly be "perfect," peer review is a very important factor in allowing accurate, testable, repeatable results to rise to the top, and filtering out the pseudo-scientific "woo woo" in the process. :cheers:
-
Since you quoted my line, I am going to consider you meant me, and I wonder if you understood what was being said here. I don't doubt you didn't, I am no scientist and don't always get my point out eloquently.
Scientists are debating the same things everyone else is on this particular subject :) If they can't agree, how do you expect us uneducated ones to agree :) There is scientific "proof" that global warming/cooling exists/doesn't exist, is/isn't man made and does/does not affect the planet. My point was to embrace debate if you believe in it strongly, and it should hold up. What did you just do to debate my message other than attempt to discredit the messenger? I showed you a real time example of how models fail and can be manipulated. I can't take it to another level without getting a thread locked. But models are data, data can be manipulated. It doesn't take a scientist to know that. Sometimes people put too much faith in someone they think is smarter than they are.
Peer Review. Sometimes it creates a snowblind affect. You have to step outside of your comfort zone once in a while to get a different perspective on things.
SlidingHorn, my real point was, I was not considered his Peer ;) I was way outclassed, outgunned, and out smarted by those in the group, according to the group. But I get what you are saying :cheers:
-
*Citation needed
Can't offer a rebuttal to this, however...I whole-heartedly agree with you here. :salute
:salute
I am thinking about the IPCC predictions and data which were straight up wrong. Close, but still much worse than actual data shows.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/the-ipcc-1990-far-predictions-were-wrong/ (http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/the-ipcc-1990-far-predictions-were-wrong/)
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/11/ipcc_s_bogus_evidence_for_global_warming.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/11/ipcc_s_bogus_evidence_for_global_warming.html)
Peer review doesn't necessarily mean the reviewers are examining and replicating data, the second link reveals that only certain data sets were used that supported the authors claim.
...kinda like what my grampa said to me about news (15 years ago); the news won't straight out lie to you, but it's up to you to understand the truths being told. Please note, this was before the media became an entertainment and fear industry.
:cheers:
I recycle. :banana:
-
Yes there is :old:
Actually, there is not.
-
You're a scientist are you?
No, but since numerous scientists have published erroneous and downright falsified papers on the subject, I am going to take that as a compliment.
-
I'm curious: How many peer reviewed papers have you published on the topic?
Not a one. I have read numerous papers on the subject and I find anyone supporting man-made global climate change as highly suspect, especially when you trace the money back to who is funding these follies.
-
A percentage of this community clearly doesn't know what science is, what it's for, how it works and are completely unable to distinguish it from pseudoscience. Or is it simply that having so much invested in the present system it becomes an issue of cultural expedience I wonder.
I find your statement to be interesting especially considering that man-made global warming never survived the scientific method and came through as fact. Rather, a number of people (who were rewarded financially) raised their hands and came to a consensus that something was occurring and demanded change to avert it. Sorry, but that is not how "theories" are proven.
-
Burning fossil fuels is the pinnacle of recycling. All that trash the dinosaurs left laying around finally gets put to a good use. :aok
-
Global warming has not been significant during the last 10 or 15 years and has not gone according to models.
This is a point that really, really makes me suspicious...
Not because it's true or not, but rather because it seems to be throwing the "warming" proponents into an odd position of trying to figure out the "why" of it, discredit the lack of warming, and continue their argument (and maybe even punish fossil fuel users).
If they really believed warming was man-related, why aren't they trying to find means to take political credit for the lack of recent warming somehow? Certainly they could find a way to capitalize on the trend, celebrate some "success" and use it to further their agenda. It doesn't really need to be a factual reason either; many would be willing to jump right onto the bandwagon simply because it's the PC thing to do...
Instead, they seem to be concentrating on the lack of recent warming as an anomaly, or maybe even a problem of sorts.
It makes me suspect that solving the warming issue (and I'm not saying I necessarily believe there is one) isn't the real agenda; rather it seems they may want to draw out the "problem" for as long as possible for as much "gain" as possible? Maybe the issue itself has more value than a solution?
And, maybe not. Regardless, the argument gets muddy enough that it's pretty tough to take sides and feel like I'm doing it based on real science.
It just doesn't feel like logical problem solving to me? I'm used to Defining a problem, Measuring it, Analyzing the data, making Improvements, and Controlling the process going forward.
If they've defined the problem, and seen what could be argued as an improvement of sorts, why aren't they explaining to us how that success was achieved? Instead, the tactic seems to be more of an "ignore what's really going on, the problem isn't solved yet" argument.
-
I didn't particularly mean to isolate you ROC, I quoted you because it appeared in your first sentence that you didn't understand what peer review was. Peer review isn't a medium through which the general public can regulate the work of scientists. They general public aren't equipped to do so. The fact that scientists do this themselves as part of their method is not insignificant.
Scientists are debating the same things everyone else is on this particular subject :) If they can't agree, how do you expect us uneducated ones to agree :)
No they really aren't.
This system you are questioning (and of course you are right to do so), does its work with the upmost rigour and is by definition free from ulterior motive. Peer review, although only a component of the system, ensures that. Scientists do not understand everything nor are they expected to do so, otherwise they'd just be custodians of knowledge. Some of the problems are so complex the only way to make progress is to define the problem (which might in itself take several years - and this is already abstract and esoteric compared to what the general public thinks constitutes a problem) and then make suppositions, construct a model and then test those. And then they make another iteration. Debate and mistakes are an inherent part of the process.
Do not confuse this with them being 'wrong' in layman's terms and therefore we can dismiss everything they say and go on without changing a lifestyle with which many people obviously have a lot invested in.
Just for the record and I think it is important for someone to state this: the current models which include the activities of mankind since the Industrial Revolution fit the observable changes to the climate with a 95% certainty. That is the scientist's rating of their own validity. There is no longer any debate in any circles of any worth which doubt this. Anyone here present can easily verify this. This is internationally accepted.
Sometimes people put too much faith in someone they think is smarter than they are.
So we have Faction A: a segment of the population who are gifted intellectually, who dedicate decades of their lives purely to the pursuit of understanding, without significant financial or other gain, that work in an international community transcending borders and political barriers, sometimes in multi-generation research programmes (this means some scientists spend their entire careers and lives and die before the conclusion of the research) who's primary motivation is to understand nature in a profound way for the benefit of humanity as a whole.
Then we have Faction B: capitalists, speculative investors, power-hungry psychotic individuals, large nationalistic institutions with budgets which rival those of small countries, also replete with clever people, who manipulate the thinking and activities of the human race as an entity (including starting wars & killing people) to further their own agendas.
And it is Faction A we should be distrustful of?
Please, think about it, just indulge me for 60 seconds of your life.
No, but since numerous scientists have published erroneous and downright falsified papers on the subject, I am going to take that as a compliment.
Then they aren't scientists.
Not a one. I have read numerous papers on the subject and I find anyone supporting man-made global climate change as highly suspect, especially when you trace the money back to who is funding these follies.
One patently obvious hole I think people like you have in your logic is you imply that scientists have an agenda to distort the truth for their own gain. Do you mean they gain funding for research? Do you know how long that lasts for when a hypothesis is disproven? Do you know how those budgets compare to a serious commercial advertising campaign for example?
I'm just curious how you rationalize this. Why? Why are the scientists saying these things? What is in it for them? What's their angle?
-
Actually, there is not.
Do you believe in UFO's and conspiracy theories? :old:
And do you like to polish your weapon when you get angry?
"Peer review" is the same as "Life style choice" a term invented for the chattering classes :old:
-
One patently obvious hole I think people like you have in your logic is you imply that scientists have an agenda to distort the truth for their own gain. Do you mean they gain funding for research? Do you know how long that lasts for when a hypothesis is disproven? Do you know how those budgets compare to a serious commercial advertising campaign for example?
I'm just curious how you rationalize this. Why? Why are the scientists saying these things? What is in it for them? What's their angle?
Well, people "like me" are distrustful of this "man-made" global warming pseudo science (now called man-made climate change and before that man-made global cooling) because there is not fact to back it up. Rather, people are being manipulated into buying into the creation of a new power scheme which ultimately breaks down into redistribution of wealth on a global scale. Further, when you start looking at the claims and the data used to make this pseudo science up it becomes downright scary. The entirety of decades of research in several cases was based on falsified data. Sampling errors on data recording stations were documented and then changed to suit these agendas.
So, do I accept this supposed science which I fear is based on a consensus as opposed to question it? You're damn right I do.
When you look at what the carbon trading scheme is about and really follow the money, you might begin to understand why this push to declare natural climate change as a man-made disaster is actually happening. The carbon trading proposals will bring many nations to their knees and make a select few wealthy beyond imagination. Think about that for awhile.
-
Do you believe in UFO's and conspiracy theories? :old:
And do you like to polish your weapon when you get angry?
"Peer review" is the same as "Life style choice" a term invented for the chattering classes :old:
Perhaps you could try to back up your belief in man-made global warming with some fact. I really would appreciate someone that could do this coming along into this discussion....
-
Can i get a job saving the world? I think im ready. :salute
-
Perhaps you could try to back up your belief in man-made global warming with some fact. I really would appreciate someone that could do this coming along into this discussion....
I have no views on global warming, i was bored :old:
-
Can i get a job saving the world? I think im ready. :salute
You sir,are hired. :salute
anyone realize how much fossil fuel they burn simply spending 30minutes on that fancy thing called the internet. I'd love to find out exactly what a forum post and review of 30 minutes actually uses energy wise... we may all be hypocrites. :devil
"Every time that you think to yourself, my action here and now is too insignificant to matter.... think about how many other people may be thinking the same thing.... "
The only thing for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing....
-
The world as a whole has warmed up a little over the last several centuries. Due to the fact that there is more humans than ever before on this planet. There is a lot of energy being consumed which is leading to a little bit warmer here on this planet.
On the whole the world does go through this cycle on its own.
You can prove this by looking at old maps that were made in the early 1500’s and had been copied from previous maps. They show Antarctica and South America in incredible detail. What is puzzling is that the Antarctica they show is not covered with ice. Today, those same features are under ice a mile thick!
My point is then this, The Northern Hemisphere is getting warmer but people fail to note that the southern hemisphere is getting colder and is building up a ice field
-
As Bob Grant used to say: "Meteorite where are you?" This planet will someday be wiped clean of the human infestation. :old:
We can get wiped out from many sources and many people think we have the power to change the Earths' dynamic environment. We don't understand history and are forced to repeat it.
Most self called scientists are morons with moronic theories and useless statistics. Even my dumb butt knows statistics are swayed by the data you wish to include.
It's cold out today and I need a coat for I live in the now. :D
-
Wpeters, The whole of the Northern Hemisphere has been warming since it was covered by ice roughly 25K years ago. There is no data to suggest, let alone show, that the increase in the human population has had any impact on the temperature of the Earth as a whole or even hemispherical.
You are right in stating that world temperatures are cyclical and that cycle is heavily influenced by the activity of the Sun.
-
Most self called scientists are morons with moronic theories and useless statistics.
Not to cast any aspersions or anything.
-
Complicated computer models have a very large number of adjustable parameters in them, and when you have a large number of adjustable parameters, you can make your model fit just about anything. However, this does not mean it is an accurate model of the process or that it will be able to predict data going into the future.
It is not unfounded to have skepticism for complicated models that fit well with past data but not so well going into the future.
Also, peer review is not a perfect cure for incorrect models. Peer review does help filter out some garbage, it is true, but it can also lock into an ideology that rejects valid but unfashionable views. This has happened a often historically in all fields of science and is a natural consequence of the way humans work -- science is a little more resistant to it compared to general society, but it is very far from immune. Many scientific theories that are accepted as legitimate today went through a period where they were ridiculed and considered to be hogwash by the majority scientific opinion of the time.
We already know that climate modeling is rife with such dynamics. You only have to read a few of the leaked e-mails of some of the opinion leaders in the field to see that unambiguously.
None of the above is to say that the current crop of climate models are completely wrong or worthless. It is just to point out caveats that people need to keep in mind with regard to modeling and the operation of the science community.
-
Its quite clear that temperatures have increased at an alarming rate. Is is man made, no idea...
IRREGARDLESS, we have a responsibility to take care of our home, Earth. Burning less fossil fuels will improve our environment global warming or not.
-
Before the industrialization of nations, when a wild fire hit then it would burn 1/4 of the continent before putting itself out. The sky was full of smoke, forests were wiped out every single year.
We now burn some fossil fuels and control the fires. Trade off isn't worth it? Everyone thinks the planet was a pristine and pure thing before we created the automobile, it was not.
-
The USA surges past Saudis to become world's top oil supplier:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/15/us-oil-pira-idUSL1N0I51IX20131015
-
I wonder what transportation methods will be economically sustainable when oil hits 500$ a barrel?
Hmmm...
Maybe Hoverboards!
(http://fireballtim.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Hoverboard-scene.jpg)
-
I wonder what transportation methods will be economically sustainable when oil hits 500$ a barrel?
Hmmm...
(http://fireballtim.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Hoverboard-scene.jpg)
H-Y-D-R-O-G-E-N
http://tech.uk.msn.com/news/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=258319534 (http://tech.uk.msn.com/news/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=258319534)
(http://db2.stb.s-msn.com/i/6B/BE78ADA55B4171CAC3C1CAD1878E.jpg)
Cell Phone Charger
http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2013-09/hydrogen-hits-track (http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2013-09/hydrogen-hits-track)
Aston Martin Race Car
http://www.aegindia.org/2013/11/featured-toyota-fcv-fuel-cell-vehicle-launch-at-tokyo-motor-show-2013-is-it-a-threat-to-tesla-s-and-prius-hybrid-sedan/2136006.html (http://www.aegindia.org/2013/11/featured-toyota-fcv-fuel-cell-vehicle-launch-at-tokyo-motor-show-2013-is-it-a-threat-to-tesla-s-and-prius-hybrid-sedan/2136006.html)
Toyota FCV
Next Big Thing,
-
The only problem with hydrogen is that its production consumes a huge amount of electricity, which in turn is made largely by burning oil or coal :)
-
The only problem with hydrogen is that its production consumes a huge amount of electricity, which in turn is made largely by burning oil or coal :)
Or natural gas, gas right under the hydrogen producing plant? Burn petrolium coke that is normaly shipped over seas?
"When completed, the 300 megawatt (MW) Hydrogen Energy California project (HECA) will produce low-carbon electricity to meet California’s increasing energy demand while minimizing greenhouse gas emissions. HECA will produce lower air emissions than any conventional plant of its size, including natural gas. In fact, the project will capture more than 3 million annual tons of greenhouse gases that would have otherwise been emitted into the atmosphere, which is equivalent to eliminating 650,000 cars from the road each year.
In addition to its many other environmental benefits, HECA’s unique process will also preserve California’s valuable fresh water resources by using brackish, non-potable water and eliminating waste water discharge.
Petroleum coke is currently shipped from California refineries to other nations where it is typically burned, releasing CO2 emissions directly into the atmosphere. Instead of burning fossil fuels that emit greenhouse gases into the air, HECA will turn coal and petroleum coke into clean hydrogen energy while permanently capturing the CO2 before it is emitted into the atmosphere. Once the hydrogen is created, it is used for two purposes: as clean fuel to generate nearly 300MW of clean electricity; and to produce about 1 million tons of locally manufactured, low-carbon fertilizer each year. Meanwhile, the CO2 will be condensed and transported via secure pipeline to nearby Elk Hills Oil Field and stored underground, which will enable the production of 5 million additional barrels of domestic oil per year in a process known as enhanced oil recovery (EOR).
Hydrogen Energy California is owned by SCS Energy, one of the nation’s leading independent developers of clean power. The project has the support of the U.S. Department of Energy as a safe and cost effective way to produce clean energy."
-
E-Bike
http://www.gizmag.com/alter-hydrogen-fuel-cell-bike/29768/ (http://www.gizmag.com/alter-hydrogen-fuel-cell-bike/29768/)
The Sun?
"A greener solution, Dai explained, is to supplement the solar cells with hydrogen-powered fuel cells that generate electricity at night or when demand is especially high.
To produce clean hydrogen for fuel cells, scientists have turned to an emerging technology called water splitting. Two semiconducting electrodes are connected and placed in water. The electrodes absorb light and use the energy to split the water into its basic components, oxygen and hydrogen. The oxygen is released into the atmosphere, and the hydrogen is stored as fuel."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131114142125.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131114142125.htm)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130515125118.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130515125118.htm)
Finding an inexpensive way to get hydrogen from water would be the best solution.... there is more water on the planet than anything.
;)
-
Well, people "like me" are distrustful of this "man-made" global warming pseudo science (now called man-made climate change and before that man-made global cooling) because there is not fact to back it up. Rather, people are being manipulated into buying into the creation of a new power scheme which ultimately breaks down into redistribution of wealth on a global scale. Further, when you start looking at the claims and the data used to make this pseudo science up it becomes downright scary. The entirety of decades of research in several cases was based on falsified data. Sampling errors on data recording stations were documented and then changed to suit these agendas.
So, do I accept this supposed science which I fear is based on a consensus as opposed to question it? You're damn right I do.
When you look at what the carbon trading scheme is about and really follow the money, you might begin to understand why this push to declare natural climate change as a man-made disaster is actually happening. The carbon trading proposals will bring many nations to their knees and make a select few wealthy beyond imagination. Think about that for awhile.
Bodhi, it appears to me, as an idle observation, that you are basically a victim of a false flag operation. The human race's economy is presently based on the securing, extraction and trade of this planet's natural resources. Most especially with the end result of burning these. Even the bread you eat is produced and transported to your mouth via fossil fuels. Those elements we don't burn are extracted, refined and distributed similarly.
Scientists suggesting this is detremental to the biosphere threaten this paradigm. How easy is it to discredit this message by setting up pseudoscientists for later debunking and then claiming these people are identical to real scientists thus contributing to the discreditation of the real scientists who are saying this in the first place? Not too difficult apparently. You for instance from my perspective seem fully locked on to the chaff.
You suggest that this lie you essentially call it, this movement, is designed to redistribute wealth. From what it is now into what? Any change I can see would be an improvement to the human race in the long-term. A more logical and intelligent international distribution of the world's resources would seem sensible - to which I'm now sure many people's response is to immediately resort to those hilarious words bandied about in the popular media which produce those inevitable and contrived knee-jerk reactions of horror: communism and socialism.
The current wealth distribution and indeed resource distribution in general is so lob-sided, so detrimental to progression and what's the word? oh yeah 'stupid', that it would be really hard to design a more perverted system if you tried. The real achievement of the Faction B I mentioned earlier is getting ordinary people to disavow scientific method and anything else which threatens their agenda with an almost religeous fervour and support the status quo as if it is something sacred and essential, presumably with a 'here's what's in it for you angle'.
These studies you are talking about, these papers, this data is not scientific. Their falsity does nothing to discredit the models which I have previously discussed because they aren't executed in the same rigorous and self-regulated, reproducible way.
Why don't we forget the economy, the agendas and even the science. Let's just look at the situation from a common sense perspective (and this is a pretty childish sketch, but here we go):
All fossil fuels, gas, oil, everything the human race burns up for energy were deposited over trillions of years by mostly plant life. Plants eat carbon dioxide and methane and all sorts of nasty elements we don't want floating around. In return they produce oxygen and other useful things. Over a time so unimaginably long you can't even comprehend it (I mean me too, it's ridiculous), this global organic tera-forming machine turned the world into a nice place for creatures to live.
When these biological entities died and decayed all of those nasties they had absorbed (the ones they haven't managed to convert) were safely stored away beneath the earth's surface. That's where it all went. I mean you can't destroy matter or eject it into space (as such), you can only move it or convert it, right? Then along comes mankind and the Industrial Revolution and in its forgivable ignorance starts extracting this material and burning it, at a rate so much faster than it was deposited that it's difficult to calculate it even conservatively or put it into any kind of meaningful frame. But very very fast.
Burning, combustion, liberates these nasties such as CO2 and especially methane releasing some of it (not all of it obviously, but enough to make a change) back into the biosphere which they were sucked out of in the first place. A more or less sealed biosphere I hasten to point out (and a small one at that).
We already know what this planet's environment was like when these nasties where floating around free and in abundance, back way way way before the first cells decided to team up and see if there was any future in it: anyone walking around without 9,000,000,000 factor sunblock, their own respirator and a pair of Oakley Armageddon™ sunglasses was going to have a really really bad day.
Sure the climate changes all by itself, cycles, that's only natural. The changes being discussed in this context are different, distinct, unprecedented and they coincide with the Industrial Revolution.
Of course this is just my view on the topic, my interpretation of the information available to me and as informed as an individual can be who isn't particularly biased and has paid attention deliberately and studied themselves. You might have your own view. Just try your best to make sure it IS your own view would be my suggestion.
-
in a way Carbon is the building block for life. And besides, if were going to run out then there is a limit to how much we can put in the air. Why dont one of them fancy scientists figure that out and out it into a model. :lol
-
in a way Carbon is the building block for life. And besides, if were going to run out then there is a limit to how much we can put in the air. Why dont one of them fancy scientists figure that out and out it into a model. :lol
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v137/BalzOnYer4Head/stephen-colbert-amp-039-s-quadruple-facepalm_o_1908371.jpg)
-
Nrshida,
You might care to look at it from the opposite side of the coin and instead of saying I am brain washed, consider you might be suffering the same diagnosis.
The fact of the matter is that many of these so called scientists used false data to project dire outcomes to our environment (for human concerns) in an effort to push for carbon trading credits. Who is pushing this and who stands to reap the biggest rewards from it's implementations. You dismiss wealth redistribution because it is "fair" or because the world's wealth is lop-sided? I am sorry that you feel that way, but I do not agree. I am far from wealthy but I will never advocate the taking of someone else's wealth to give to another solely because they have less. It is not logical and certainly counter productive.
Obviously this is beyond the mere belief in man-made global climate change and more into the belief and support of social re-engineering for you. I am sorry, I can not agree to that and will do everything in my power to fight it and this farce called man-made global climate change.
-
Nrshida, I advise you not to waste your time trying to convince people who don't believe in "global warming" because they think there is some conspiracy behind it or because "all the evidence is bogus." There is basically nothing you can say that they will believe as they do not except the 97 percent consensus among client scientists as being valid. I don't know why there is such disbelief but there it is.
-
Global warming is a myth
NASA has said the Suns magnetic field is going to flip in next couple of weeks :cry
-
I am sorry, I can not agree to that and will do everything in my power to fight it and this farce called man-made global climate change.
I think you overestimate your power because you seem unwilling to 'zoom out' to gain perspective and do not fully understand what you are dealing with (perhaps deliberately) but regardless we have exchanged opinions civilly and must agree to disagree. :salute
Nrshida, I advise you not to waste your time trying to convince people who don't believe in "global warming" because they think there is some conspiracy behind it or because "all the evidence is bogus." There is basically nothing you can say that they will believe as they do not except the 97 percent consensus among client scientists as being valid. I don't know why there is such disbelief but there it is.
You are right but perhaps it is important to contribute your opinion sometimes just for balance and for those who are open-minded and /or interested.
:salute
-
Since when has consensus become scientific? Oh wait, it has not.
There is no conspiracy behind not believing in the man-made global warming / cooling / term of the day farce. All I want to see is some proof that man is behind climate change. That proof would also require the data to be legitimate (see not falsified, changed, fudged, erroneous, all inclusive, and/or simply fantasy) and to also take into account exterior influences and not just what those backing the study want to use.
Still waiting on that day when a study like that would come out.
-
I think you overestimate your power because you seem unwilling to 'zoom out' to gain perspective and do not fully understand what you are dealing with (perhaps deliberately) but regardless we have exchanged opinions civilly and must agree to disagree. :salute
Sadly, I feel much the same way as you, that you do not fully understand what is going on. Either way, good luck.
-
And besides, big flippin deal, you dweebs are going to kill each other first anyway. Quit taking my job, leave me alone, and stfu.
BTW, I was promoted boss world saver and your all Fired. The exterminator will be by tomorrow. Dont worry, you can keep your peace knowing the Earth will be safe.
Agghhhh! wheres my coat.
-
global warming, global cooling, its all a cycle. Back when dinosaurs were here, I don't think that they wrote the temperatures down or recorded anything. I know the scientists say this or that, but HOW DO THEY KNOW?? I mean they say there is a "hole in the o-zone" well shooting a shuttle through it I am sure doesn't help the matter. I also read somewhere a long time ago that the shuttle puts the same amount of emissions into the air as something like 2 billion cars in a year, not sure of exact numbers, but it was way high. Doesn't seem to bother NASA. I was just talking about alternative energy the other day at work. One of the guys that works PT at the company I work for works at Vermont Yankee,which for those of you that don't know what it is, it is a nuclear power plant. They are closing the plant due to too many people not liking it, but another subject. So we were saying that people don't want nuclear because of the waste. Then there is wind power, but people don't like to see the wind farms, and it "might kill a bird". Then there is solar, it takes so many panels to make enough power to power a town it would take a mountain side of panels, and back to "I don't want to see them, they are ugly". Then there is hydro-power, cant put a turbine in the water as a fish might swim into and get killed. Coal power, well that puts all kinds of nasty things in the air. My dad was telling me some people drove out to protest oil drilling a couple weeks ago, well they showed up driving a big suburban. Ummmmm, kinda doesn't make sense :headscratch:, as everything uses oil or by products, shoes, tvs, cars, houses, yup pretty much everything :bolt:
-
Homer, Not sure who told you that about Vermont Yankee, but it's not true. They are closing Vermont Yankee because of a lack of onsite storage capacity for the spent rods and key issues with upgrading the plant to handle a natural disaster. The plant has outlived it's planned life by a substantial amount and if I am not mistaken, is the oldest still active plant in the US.
-
Well I have heard a dozen and a half stories about why yankee is closing, but yes I have heard about the lack of storage. I think that it closing is going to take a lot of revenue away from the southern vt area. Most of the people I have talked to here just don't like nuclear power, regardless if it had the storage capacity or not.