Global Warming Cont...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inudesu

I'm sure much of the large scale rain forrest loss is from companies that could be replanting. But I also think a pretty good bit of it is done by people who aren't really operating on a scale that affords replanting. That doesn't mean I think they should be doing it (the short-sightedness is obvious) but if my choice is cut down an old growth jungle tree or go hungry, I'm getting my ax. You stopping me from doing that is punishing me economically just like tightening pollution is punishing a coal plant.

You're still hurting an economy based on the same science. It's just farther away.

---

It could be managed without turning the forest into a cow pasture or failed corn field.

Are you familiar with the wetlands laws in the U.S.? It's all about mitigation.

You cut a tree? plant one or two. Planting trees is ridiculously easy and cheap.

http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:...20Malaysia.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3415/...2117af68_m.jpghttp://www.palatinedemocrats.com/Ima...rainforest.jpghttp://www.ecoworld.org/articles/ima...est07_peru.jpg

This isn't one poor dude with an axe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken_Horndawgs

It could be managed without turning the forest into a cow pasture or failed corn field.

Are you familiar with the wetlands laws in the U.S.? It's all about mitigation.

You cut a tree? plant one or two. Planting trees is ridiculously easy and cheap.

---

I'm agreeing with your principle. I just don't think the sustenance farmer with no education living in Ethiopia or Madagascar or Brazil is going to feel any different about you taking his money away than GE or Atmos does. And he can't afford to buy seedlings. He's going to say "if you've got to do something, then deal with your coal plants first, then come talk to me about my clear-cutting."

But I do agree we should be trying to educate people (as much for their own future in avoiding droughts, floods, etc. as for making us feel better about the dreaded carbon monster and his footprints).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken_Horndawgs

http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:...20Malaysia.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3415/...2117af68_m.jpghttp://www.palatinedemocrats.com/Ima...rainforest.jpghttp://www.ecoworld.org/articles/ima...est07_peru.jpg

This isn't one poor dude with an axe.

---

It's a lot of poor dudes with axes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inudesu

I'm agreeing with your principle. I just don't think the substenance farmer with no education living in Ethiopia or Madagascar or Brazil is going to feel any different about you taking his money away than GE or Atmos does. And he can't afford to buy seedlings. He's going to say "if you've got to do something, then deal with your coal plants first, then come talk to me about my clear-cutting."

But I do agree we should be trying to educate people (as much for their own future in avoiding droughts, floods, etc. as for making us feel better about the dreaded carbon monster and his footprints).

---

One big tree is worth a lot of money.....a seedling is cheap.

I'm not a big proponent of coal plants...I'd rather go nuclear

At some point it's going to stop becoming a CO2 issue (which I'm not overly concerned about) and become an OXYGEN issue (which I'm sort of concerned about).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Communist.

---

It's in the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution, if you are interested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

It's in the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution, if you are interested.

---

The Preamble of the Constitution. But it doesn't exactly say it is the duty of the government to promote the general welfare, and it definitely doesn't suggest the government should use the tax system to impose morality on the people. That is communist.

What the preamble essentially says is that "The People" for various reasons, including the interest of the "General Welfare" created a CONSTITUTION. And if you know anything about "The People" that created the constitution, you would know that they had no intention of creating a nanny state.

And fascist, too, I should add.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...obalstats.html

February 18, 2009
The combined global land and ocean surface average temperature for January 2009 was the seventh warmest since records began in 1880, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

The Preamble of the Constitution. But it doesn't exactly say it is the duty of the government to promote the general welfare, and it definitely doesn't suggest the government should use the tax system to impose morality on the people. That is communist.

What the preamble essentially says is that "The People" for various reasons, including the interest of the "General Welfare" created a CONSTITUTION. And if you know anything about "The People" that created the constitution, you would know that they had no intention of creating a nanny state.

---

Yeah, the current actions of the Federal Government is communist and fascist and you want to live in New Orleans circa 1824.

The Federal Government is using its power to tax to discourage people from smoking cigarettes. Does that constitute a "nanny State"? Where exactly does the government get its power to decide what it may or may not do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Yeah, the current actions of the Federal Government is communist and fascist and you want to live in New Orleans circa 1824.

The Federal Government is using its power to tax to discourage people from smoking cigarettes. Does that constitute a "nanny State"? Where exactly does the government get its power to decide what it may or may not do?

---

Yes, we already live in a quasi nanny state. The fact that I cannot buy beer on Sundays without driving hundreds of miles proves this point. Government gets it's power from it's overwhelming monopoly of force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Yes, we already live in a quasi nanny state. The fact that I cannot buy beer on Sundays without driving hundreds of miles proves this point. Government gets it's power from it's overwhelming monopoly of force.

---

Your beef is with the State gov't. In Nevada you can buy beer 24/7.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Your beef is with the State gov't. In Nevada you can buy beer 24/7.

---

City actually, but the nanny state occurs at all levels.

USG set to regulate CO2 emissions.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1235...oo_hs&ru=yahoo

President Barack Obama's climate czar said the Environmental Protection Agency will soon determine that carbon-dioxide emissions represent a danger to the public and propose new rules to regulate emissions of the greenhouse gas from a range of industries.
Carol Browner, special adviser to the president on climate change and energy, said in an interview Sunday that the EPA is looking at a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that requires the agency to determine whether carbon dioxide endangers public health or welfare. And the agency "will make an endangerment finding," she said.
"The next step is a notice of proposed rule making" for new regulations on carbon-dioxide emissions, said Ms. Browner, speaking on the sidelines of the National Governors Association meeting in Washington.
Officially recognizing that carbon dioxide is a danger to the public would require the government, under the Clean Air Act, to draw up regulations governing greenhouse-gas emissions from coal-fired power plants, refineries, chemical plants, cement firms, vehicles and any other emitting sectors.

That ought to kick start the economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

That ought to kick start the economy.

---

Exactly.

Antarctic glaciers moving more swiftly seaward.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009...iftly-seaward/

Antarctic glaciers are melting faster than previously thought, which could lead to an unprecedented rise in sea levels, scientists said Wednesday.
A report by thousands of scientists for the 2007-2008 International Polar Year concluded that the western part of the continent is warming up, not just the Antarctic Peninsula.
Previously most of the warming was thought to occur on the narrow stretch pointing toward South America, said Colin Summerhayes, executive director of the Britain-based Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research and a member of International Polar Year's steering committee.
Satellite data and automated weather stations indicate that "the warming we see in the peninsula also extends all the way down to what is called west Antarctica," he told The Associated Press. "That's unusual and unexpected."
During the International Polar Year, thousands of scientists from more than 60 countries engaged in intense Arctic and Antarctic research over the past two southern summer seasons _ on the ice, at sea, and via icebreaker, submarine and surveillance satellite.
The biggest western Antarctic glacier, the Pine Island Glacier, is moving 40 percent faster than it was in the 1970s, discharging water and ice more rapidly into the ocean, Summerhayes said.
The Smith Glacier, also in western Antarctica, is moving 83 percent faster than it did in 1992, he said.

How does one make up their mind when there is so much contradicting material out there on this issue?

Easy. Just trust these people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSEaH...eature=related

Rusla, notice how Guiss resorts to an appeal to emotions when answering your question. That means the deniers are intellectually bankrupt.

I didn't appeal to emtions. The greenies in that video did. Are you saying greenies are intellectually bankrupt?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Rusla, notice how Guiss resorts to an appeal to emotions when answering your question. That means the deniers are intellectually bankrupt.

---

That seems to be the approach no matter which side is speaking...


By-the-by, can't see the video...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rus-La

That seems to be the approach no matter which side is speaking...


By-the-by, can't see the video...

---

The video is a bunch of hippies (environmental whackos) crying about some old-growth trees dying.

Guiss, since when has SCIENCE been intellectually bankrupt?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

I didn't appeal to emtions. The greenies in that video did. Are you saying greenies are intellectually bankrupt?

---

Sure you appealed to emotions by referencing that video. Certainly was not to advance any sort of intellectual argument about whether AGW was NOT occurring.

Saying that AGW isn't occurring because some environmental whackos like to cry about trees dying isn't very logical, is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Sure you appealed to emotions by referencing that video. Certainly was not to advance any sort of intellectual argument about whether AGW was NOT occurring.

Saying that AGW isn't occurring because some environmental whackos like to cry about trees dying isn't very logical, is it?

---

Is having fun not allowed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Is having fun not allowed?

---

Sure it is, and that video was funny. What isn't funny is AGW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Sure it is, and that video was funny. What isn't funny is AGW.

---

It is also funny how serious you are about something that is so far from certain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

It is also funny how serious you are about something that is so far from certain.

---

You're cracking me up. AGW is science and the confidence level for it is very high. Just look at the latest report on Antarctica. A 3 to 5 foot rise in sea level by the end of this century is nothing to sneeze at. Of course, almost everybody on this message board will be dead by then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

It is also funny how serious you are about something that is so far from certain.

---

you should never ever doubt what nobody is sure about -- willy wonka

Japs flip the birdie at U.N. and !!OBAMA!! on global warming:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02...t_translation/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nadB

Japs flip the birdie at U.N. and !!OBAMA!! on global warming:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02...t_translation/

---

You mean a Japanese fossil fuel funded outfit issues a classic denier report. Surprise! Surprise!

But not to worry, the Japanese gov't is fully behind the AGW conspiracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Antarctic glaciers moving more swiftly seaward.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009...iftly-seaward/

Antarctic glaciers are melting faster than previously thought, which could lead to an unprecedented rise in sea levels, scientists said Wednesday.
A report by thousands of scientists for the 2007-2008 International Polar Year concluded that the western part of the continent is warming up, not just the Antarctic Peninsula.
Previously most of the warming was thought to occur on the narrow stretch pointing toward South America, said Colin Summerhayes, executive director of the Britain-based Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research and a member of International Polar Year's steering committee.
Satellite data and automated weather stations indicate that "the warming we see in the peninsula also extends all the way down to what is called west Antarctica," he told The Associated Press. "That's unusual and unexpected."
During the International Polar Year, thousands of scientists from more than 60 countries engaged in intense Arctic and Antarctic research over the past two southern summer seasons _ on the ice, at sea, and via icebreaker, submarine and surveillance satellite.
The biggest western Antarctic glacier, the Pine Island Glacier, is moving 40 percent faster than it was in the 1970s, discharging water and ice more rapidly into the ocean, Summerhayes said.
The Smith Glacier, also in western Antarctica, is moving 83 percent faster than it did in 1992, he said.

---

Bump. Please comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Guiss, I know that you are a bird lover so here is something for you.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2...9-02-10-01.asp

Driven by a warming climate, North American birds are moving northward and inland, according to new analyses by scientists with the National Audubon Society of 40 years of observations by birdwatchers.

Sophisticated computerized analysis of data gathered during Audubon's Christmas Bird Counts since 1968 show that 58 percent of the 305 widespread species that winter on the continent have shifted north, some by hundreds of miles.
"Experts predict that global warming will mean dire consequences, even extinction, for many bird species, and this analysis suggests that that the process leading down that path is already well underway," warned Audubon President John Flicker during a conference call with reporters today. "We're witnessing an uncontrolled experiment on the birds and the world we share with them."
"Too many people who hear about melting glaciers, polar bears, and changing weather conclude that the impacts of global warming are happening far in the future and far from home. Now they can witness the impact global warming is having with the birds they see or don't see right outside their doors," said Flicker.

---

Bump. Please comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Western Forests under stress from one degree increase in temperature.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/...,7385012.story

---

Bump/ Please comment.

So - global warming is causing the glaciers to melt, which is pouring untold amounts of fresh water into the sea, desalinating (or whatever the word is), which will stop or alter the currents, and cause the next ice age.... Seems way too much like a movie plot... oh wait.


Problem is - as plausiable and actual as that is, you CAN NOT stop that and it will take hundreds, thousands, or millions of year for it to happen! Curbing carbon emissions or anything else that creates "green house gases" isn't going to do anything. Delaying the inevitable, is more of a detriment society than anything good...

The so-called "research" shouldn't be in prevention, it should be in adaption. You know it's getting hot, you know it's going to get cold, make the necessary equipment and such for both extremes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rus-La

So - global warming is causing the glaciers to melt, which is pouring untold amounts of fresh water into the sea, desalinating (or whatever the word is), which will stop or alter the currents, and cause the next ice age.... Seems way too much like a movie plot... oh wait.


Problem is - as plausiable and actual as that is, you CAN NOT stop that and it will take hundreds, thousands, or millions of year for it to happen! Curbing carbon emissions or anything else that creates "green house gases" isn't going to do anything. Delaying the inevitable, is more of a detriment society than anything good...

The so-called "research" shouldn't be in prevention, it should be in adaption. You know it's getting hot, you know it's going to get cold, make the necessary equipment and such for both extremes.

---

Butterfly Effect? Or Back to the Future?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUE collar

Butterfly Effect? Or Back to the Future?

---

?

Well being that you refered these theories to a movie...which I agree it seems too hollywood... I was wondering are you talking about the Butterfly Effect, where something as small as the vibration of a butterfly's wings can trigger a hurricane around the world. Or the space time continuim that Doc warned Marty not to mess with in Back to the Future, when you made the comment "Delaying the inevitable, is more of a detriment society than anything good... "

All in all it is just my way of agreeing with you

that was the plot for The Day After Tomorrow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rus-La

So - global warming is causing the glaciers to melt, which is pouring untold amounts of fresh water into the sea, desalinating (or whatever the word is), which will stop or alter the currents, and cause the next ice age.... Seems way too much like a movie plot... oh wait.


Problem is - as plausiable and actual as that is, you CAN NOT stop that and it will take hundreds, thousands, or millions of year for it to happen! Curbing carbon emissions or anything else that creates "green house gases" isn't going to do anything. Delaying the inevitable, is more of a detriment society than anything good...

The so-called "research" shouldn't be in prevention, it should be in adaption. You know it's getting hot, you know it's going to get cold, make the necessary equipment and such for both extremes.

---

Problem is that without the huge amount of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere, mostly from burning fossil fuel, the Earth would be entering a cooling phase. 50 years from now you will see what AGW is all about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Problem is that without the huge amount of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere, mostly from burning fossil fuel, the Earth would be entering a cooling phase. 50 years from now you will see what AGW is all about.

---

Sometimes, science can't explain things and certainly can't make it a cookie cutter thing, no matter what "test" they have come up with (remember, these are created to reach a desired result too)... and being able to tell what happened billions, millinos, thousands, and hundreds of years ago, how it effects today, and how it affects tomorrow, is not possible... nor should it be a concern, as what is going to happen is going to happen. As much as humans try, we can NOT control everything...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rus-La

Sometimes, science can't explain things and certainly can't make it a cookie cutter thing, no matter what "test" they have come up with (remember, these are created to reach a desired result too)... and being able to tell what happened billions, millinos, thousands, and hundreds of years ago, how it effects today, and how it affects tomorrow, is not possible... nor should it be a concern, as what is going to happen is going to happen. As much as humans try, we can NOT control everything...

---

That's a comforting thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

That's a comforting thought.

---

Yep, allows me to buy and do what I want. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rus-La

Yep, allows me to buy and do what I want. :D

---

Without any feeling of responsibility.:icon_wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Without any feeling of responsibility.:icon_wink:

---

:banana:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Without any feeling of responsibility.:icon_wink:

---

I feel responibility for crap I can controll. My savings, paying bills, you know stuff that actually matters. Not stuff that is made up by liberal hippies to try and bring attention to a rediculous "cause." Yes I put it is quotes because I don't feel that it is a true cause.

Just ran across some DOE data that shows that CO2 capture will reduce the net efficiency of power plants by 11-27%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Just ran across some DOE data that shows that CO2 capture will reduce the net efficiency of power plants by 11-27%.

---

not surprising...

source?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rus-La

not surprising...

source?

---

I didn't get the info from the Internet, but it is part of this on-going study:

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cove...MqrF4u/native/

The .pdf gives alot of useful info.

Another interesting paper. Shows that going nuclear is BY FAR the best way to mitigate CO2 emissions. See table on page 17.

sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/WhitePaper.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

I didn't get the info from the Internet, but it is part of this on-going study:

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cove...MqrF4u/native/

The .pdf gives alot of useful info.

---

thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Just ran across some DOE data that shows that CO2 capture will reduce the net efficiency of power plants by 11-27%.

---

That's true only for amine systems that are going to inject the co2 into geologic formations.

Sorbent systems that are going to convert the co2 into fuel have a different efficiency/cost profile.

Need to look at cost per KW hour and subsitution benefits plus balance of trade.

Don't know about no GW or the pending ice age, but I do know it's a gorgeous day in northwest Louisiana! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

Don't know about no GW or the pending ice age, but I do know it's a gorgeous day in northwest Louisiana! :)

---

It's all global warming's fault!:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Another interesting paper. Shows that going nuclear is BY FAR the best way to mitigate CO2 emissions. See table on page 17.

sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/WhitePaper.pdf

---

We can't cut pollution down to zero captain planet... don't you know that every human exhales CO2? What are you going to do kill everyone? So you and Obama and all the other planeteers are just going to have to find another way to scare me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

That's true only for amine systems that are going to inject the co2 into geologic formations.

Sorbent systems that are going to convert the co2 into fuel have a different efficiency/cost profile.

Need to look at cost per KW hour and subsitution benefits plus balance of trade.

---

you're right. converting the co2 back to fuel is MUCH less efficient. if you think otherwise, how about a source with real numbers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

you're right. converting the co2 back to fuel is MUCH less efficient. if you think otherwise, how about a source with real numbers?

---

http://economy.mse.uiuc.edu/CO2.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUE collar

We can't cut pollution down to zero captain planet... don't you know that every human exhales CO2? What are you going to do kill everyone? So you and Obama and all the other planeteers are just going to have to find another way to scare me.

---

One volcano, like the one erupting now in the Pacific, puts out enough "greenhouse" gases to equal 50 years of internal combustion engine output.

I expect to see saltydawg and algore out there, today! wagging their fingers at the dastardly volcano and commanding it to stop! :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

http://economy.mse.uiuc.edu/CO2.htm

---

:laugh:
not the "near-zero loss power cycle" again!

It should be called the "near-zero carbon loss cycle". Salty, have you ever studied the second law of thermodynamics (more than reading wikipedia)?

Let's stay focus on global warming. Sure there is going to be a cost to capturing and converting co2 into useful chemicals, but it is going to be less than capturing co2 via amines and then injecting it deep underground. Even Billpup would agree with me on that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

One volcano, like the one erupting now in the Pacific, puts out enough "greenhouse" gases to equal 50 years of internal combustion engine output.

I expect to see saltydawg and algore out there, today! wagging their fingers at the dastardly volcano and commanding it to stop! :rolleyes:

---

dawg80, that is not true.:rolleyes4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

:laugh:
not the "near-zero loss power cycle" again!

---

Nice CV. http://economy.mse.uiuc.edu/


Professor Economy received his BS from Wayne State University and PhD from the University of Maryland. From 1960-75, he was manager of materials science and chemistry and of the Research Branch in the Research and Development Division of the Carborundum Co. During this period, he was responsible for the development of a number of advanced polymers and ceramics, eight of which are commercially available today. From 1975-89, he was manager of the Polymer Science and Technology Department in the Research Division of IBM, where his group achieved worldwide prominence both scientifically and technologically. Since 1981 this group transferred, on average, two new materials per year to the operating divisions. In 1989, he joined UIUC as Professor and Head of the Department of Materials Science and Engineering.



Fiber Society's Founder's Award (2005)
Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2003)
Fellow, PMSE (2001)
Paul J. Flory Polymer Research Prize (2001)
etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Nice CV.

---

Not really for the thermodynamic claim he is making. Has he even taken undergraduate thermodynamics?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Not really for the thermodynamic claim he is making. Has he even taken undergraduate thermodynamics?

---

Maybe you should send him an email? I phoned Fred Singer once and asked him about the reliability of the ice cores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

http://economy.mse.uiuc.edu/CO2.htm

---

I have had multiple discussions with Dr. Economy at various polymer science conferences. He is a good researcher in the field of polymer science, and I have no doubt that he or others will be able to design a highly selective CO2 membrane. But Economy is NOT an expert in large scale thermodynamic cycles, and his team has NOT perfected a technique on CO2 conversion.

What you are pulling here is a student's proposed research project. I'd be willing to bet that in 5-10 years, the research on CO2 conversion will be RIGHT where it is today. The research group will demonstrate that they can get increased selectivity, strength, lifetime, etc., out of the MEMBRANE, but will leave the CO2 conversion aspect as "future work" -- something to leave out there so they can continue to get funding for their project...

These guys do NOT know what they are talking about on this issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

I have had multiple discussions with Dr. Economy at various polymer science conferences. He is a good researcher in the field of polymer science, and I have no doubt that he or others will be able to design a highly selective CO2 membrane. But Economy is NOT an expert in large scale thermodynamic cycles, and his team has NOT perfected a technique on CO2 conversion.

What you are pulling here is a student's proposed research project. I'd be willing to bet that in 5-10 years, the research on CO2 conversion will be RIGHT where it is today. The research group will demonstrate that they can get increased selectivity, strength, lifetime, etc., out of the MEMBRANE, but will leave the CO2 conversion aspect as "future work" -- something to leave out there so they can continue to get funding for their project...

These guys do NOT know what they are talking about on this issue.

---

I agree that it will take energy to transform co2 into other chemicals. But you agree it can be done, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

I agree that it will take energy to transform co2 into other chemicals. But you agree it can be done, right?

---

of course it can be done! i don't think anyone is disputing that. the question is, "is it worth it?" and the answer is, "no."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

I agree that it will take energy to transform co2 into other chemicals. But you agree it can be done, right?

---

Some reactions with co2 are actually highly favorable. Getting CO2 to react is not really the problem. Getting it to react into something cheaper to handle is. Getting CO2 to efficiently convert into a fuel source is a highly unfavored reaction, and I highly doubt that it can be done with a catalyst that does not need to be replenished. Do you have any idea what the energy/emission requirements are to produce high quality heavy metal catalysts?

Plant life seem pretty good at converting CO2 into usable material, but I would be interested in knowing how efficient that process is... If one could perfect a solar cell that could "generate" a ton of energy (convert solar energy with more than 30% recovery), one might be able to use that energy to convert CO2. Then again -- one would probably "see more impact" (assuming there is human production/atmospheric CO2 link) by competing against coal as an energy source to reduce emissions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

dawg80, that is not true.:rolleyes4:

---

Oh, so you and algore won't be commanding that volcano to stop?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

Oh, so you and algore won't be commanding that volcano to stop?

---

What in the world for? It's not contributing to global warming.:icon_wink:

I'm just curious, can anyone point to a credible article that discusses why the fact that other planets in our solar system (such as Mars) have been experiencing a warming trend that tracks along with that we have noticed on earth? I'm particularly interested in how those who still insist on a human cause for global warming account for it.

Maybe you should point to the article that claims that Mars is getting warmer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Maybe you should point to the article that claims that Mars is getting warmer.

---

Who do you think I am, Tyler? :D

Just google it and you get tons of hits. There is no debate as to WHETHER Mars is getting warmer. The debate is about what it means. One side says that it is proof that whatever effect CO2 has on earth's temperature pales in comparison to what the sun's cycles do. I'm trying to find out what the other side says. The main argument I've seen in the articles I've scanned is that they are saying it is a "coincidence." That is a convenient but decidedly unscientific way to account for data that do not fit your theory.

Here is a link that I like. Unfortunately, there are no ads for colonic cleaners.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

My opinion is that it is too early to know what it means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

My opinion is that it is too early to know what it means.

---

so as long as you can't jump to a conclusion that costs billions of unproductive dollars, you're willing to wait until there is more evidence?

or maybe you just think whatever realclimate tells you to think...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

so as long as you can't jump to a conclusion that costs billions of unproductive dollars, you're willing to wait until there is more evidence?

or maybe you just think whatever realclimate tells you to think...

---

I don't live on Mars.

Redistribution of wealth via THE HOAX.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510937,00.html

Gee, I didn't see this coming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TulsaDawg

Redistribution of wealth via THE HOAX.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510937,00.html

Gee, I didn't see this coming.

---

Nice ad on detoxing one's colon.

Just wondering, but why do all this right wing-nut internet sites have ads for detoxing the colon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Nice ad on detoxing one's colon.

Just wondering, but why do all this right wing-nut internet sites have ads for detoxing the colon?

---

Because unlike liberal publishing points that get government funding... right-wing sites make MONEY to support themselves.

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/20..._470x284,0.jpg

global worming is a serious threat...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/20..._470x284,0.jpg

global worming is a serious threat...

---

I just knew that global warming was related to colon cleaners.

Frost Watch: How to protect your plants


http://utica.static.ghm.zope.net/res...er_300x250.gif


Observer-Dispatch
Posted May 31, 2009 @ 02:22 PM

Local gardeners may want to take special measures to protect their plants this evening as a frost advisory has been issued for much of New York state, including Oneida County.
The advisory issued by the National Weather Service remains in effect until 8 a.m. Monday.

Temperatures are expected to fall into the mid-to-low 30s overnight, and a hard frost is likely as temperatures in colder areas approach freezing.
Brad Alcott, owner of Alcott's Greenhouses in Waterville, said the possible frost may catch some gardeners off guard.
"Memorial Day has always been the rule of thumb for planting in the garden. So June 1 is definitely late," he said.
Alcott offered these suggestions for protecting plants from a late frost:

• Move planters and container gardens inside overnight if at all possible
• Tomatoes and other sensitive plants can be covered with 5-gallon buckets or specially-designed "water towers" to trap heat around them.
• Other plants should be covered with cloth sheets
• Avoid covering plants with plastic sheeting. "Frost will go right through it and burn the plants where it's touching them," Alcott said.

Alcott said frost damage also can be mitigated after it happens by pouring water over plants in the early morning. Removing the frost this way before the sun hits the plants will make the damage less severe, he said.
Alcott said the lastest frost he remembers in our area occurred on June 6. He also said the last frost of the spring is historically associated with a full moon, which this year falls on June 7.
The region’s low temperature for today is expected to be about 36 degrees, which also is the record low temperature for May 31, according to WKTV meteorologists and weather archives.

The record was set in 1966.

A low of 50 degrees is expected for Monday.

The record low for June 1 is 31 degrees, which was set in 1945, according to weather archives.

Global warming causes these cold snaps. How?

The planet is warming so rapidly that the remaining cold air has to hold special meetings to discuss the crisis, so the cold air agree to meet somewhere, this time in New York. So, you see these inexplicable cold snaps like this.

It's GW's fault....

....of course I mean George W. Bush! It's his fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

Global warming causes these cold snaps. How?

The planet is warming so rapidly that the remaining cold air has to hold special meetings to discuss the crisis, so the cold air agree to meet somewhere, this time in New York. So, you see these inexplicable cold snaps like this.

It's GW's fault....

....of course I mean George W. Bush! It's his fault.

---

Your killing me. Did you make that up, or did you just forget to note that it's more words of wisdom from Al Gore?

Am I the only one that hopes the whale fishermen ram into and sink the protester's boat on Whale Wars?

wazzup??? :D

hey man, cool as heck out west. Go west young man.

the good news is that it should be an "average" year in the gulf for canes

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre.../uah_jun09.png

where my global warming at?

OMG it's hot today. Darn you global warming! I want 70F summers and 50F winters! How can I manipulate everybody's lives to achieve that?

Gore: U.S. Climate Bill Will Help Bring About 'Global Governance'

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1893/G...bal-Governance

Former Vice President Al Gore declared that the Congressional climate bill will help bring about “global governance.”

But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.” (Editor's Note: Gore makes the “global governance” comment at the 1min. 10 sec. mark in this UK Times video.)

Gore's call for “global governance” echoes former French President Jacques Chirac's call in 2000.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6658672.ece

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Nice ad on detoxing one's colon.

Just wondering, but why do all this right wing-nut internet sites have ads for detoxing the colon?

---

Because we will all need it after taking it in the ass from Obama and Congress.

Global Ocean Surface Temperature WARMEST on RECORD for June
July 17, 2009

The world’s ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for June, breaking the previous high mark set in 2005, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Additionally, the combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for June was second-warmest on record. The global records began in 1880.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...obalstats.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altadawg

Global Ocean Surface Temperature WARMEST on RECORD for June
July 17, 2009

The world’s ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for June, breaking the previous high mark set in 2005, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Additionally, the combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for June was second-warmest on record. The global records began in 1880.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...obalstats.html

---

so where are all of the hurricanes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altadawg

Global Ocean Surface Temperature WARMEST on RECORD for June
July 17, 2009

The world’s ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for June, breaking the previous high mark set in 2005, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Additionally, the combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for June was second-warmest on record. The global records began in 1880.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...obalstats.html

---

Are we sure the carpet baggers had accurate measuring devices in 1880?

We got told "warm waters make more hurricanes!" but so far, that is a very questionable premise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FishingBack

We got told "warm waters make more hurricanes!" but so far, that is a very questionable premise.

---

I think that you got told that warmer surface ocean water can produce more destructive hurricanes but the number of hurricanes will remain more or less the same.

:sleeping3: I thought we were past posting every NOAA article on hurricanes...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duckbillplatty

:sleeping3: I thought we were past posting every NOAA article on hurricanes...

---

Meathead,

It wasnt an article on hurricanes. It was an article about the warmest ocean water ever recorded.

Other poster regarding hurricanes. Dont go there. We are going to have 2-3 more Katrina like storms in the next 10-20 years. Eventually, even people like you will be on board. We will always have room on the bandwagon, though, so dont worry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altadawg

Meathead,

It wasnt an article on hurricanes. It was an article about the warmest ocean water ever recorded.

Other poster regarding hurricanes. Dont go there. We are going to have 2-3 more Katrina like storms in the next 10-20 years. Eventually, even people like you will be on board. We will always have room on the bandwagon, though, so dont worry.

---

Wasn't Katrina like a Cat 1 when it hit land?? There have been Cat 5s make landfall before...before I drove my tahoe that leaks oil directly onto the sun

I think it was 3 at FL and 4 when it hit the LA coast, and a 3 by the time it got to nola.