Global Warming Cont...

[Bill Pup60]

Bill, (1) the average global temperature is rising. Fact 100% (2) 97% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 is the result of human activities. Fact 100% (3) the orbit and axis deviations of the Earth should be leading to decreasing average global temperatures and declining Co2 levels. Fact 100% (4) solar activity heats the planet earth and is not responsible for the recent increase in average global temperature. Fact 100% (5) the possibility that aliens are responsible for the increase in average global temperature and for killing Anna Nicole Smith 2%

Add them all up and you get a 98% probability.

As for limiting CO2 emissions from burning fosil fuels and increasing productivity, the increase efficiency in system wide performance of tranporation and electricity production will increase productivity. What is the thermal efficiency of the internal combustion engine and coal-fired power plants?

How much will AGW hurt productivity? That's the real question.:icon_wink:

Salty......

First you just keep spouting the doctrine of the CGW and proclaiming it as fact. This is pure BS.

As for the efficiency factor, (setting aside nuclear production of heat)you really can't get much better than a high performance internal combustion engine. Lots of energy packed in a small carrier ( gasoline or diesel). Racing car engines are close to the peak of converting the fuel energy to use as far as efficiency goes. Everything pretty much goes downhill from there. The bottom line is ....... no matter how much Al Gore and the lefty loonies want it to happen......you simply can't change the laws of physics!!!!!!!

[Bill Pup60]

Cold, hard science



By Tom Purcell
Sunday, February 11, 2007
I knew it! I knew that humans are the cause of global warming!
Ah, yes, you refer to a summary report recently released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It concludes that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming.
Very likely? The summary says there's a 90 percent probability that greenhouse gases, a byproduct of the fossil fuels we burn, are causing the Earth to warm.
Look, it is a fact that the Earth is warming. But the exact cause of the warming has not yet been proven. That is the unfortunate truth.

You're a Republican, aren't you?
Politics should have nothing to do with science. Scientists are supposed to follow the scientific method. They come up with a hypothesis, then apply a rigorous, objective, measurable process to disprove it. If they can’t disprove it, then in effect they have proved it. Real science works this way.
Your point?
How is it that there's a 90 percent chance humans are causing global warming? Doesn't that mean there's a 10 percent chance we've got nothing to do with it? Shouldn't scientists be more precise - that humans are causing all global warming or none of it or 28.3756 percent of it?
But the atmosphere is incredibly complex. I think you're asking a lot.
Am I? A plane is designed and built based on scientific facts and principles. Would you board a plane if it had only a 90 percent probability of arriving at its destination?
Not sober. But isn't there a consensus among the world's scientists? Many believe that humans are the cause of global warming.
The key word is believe. Scientists aren't supposed to believe. They're supposed to prove or disprove. As for consensus, Michael Crichton says it's the first refuge of scoundrels. He talked about it in a speech he gave in 2003.
Michael Crichton the novelist?
Yes. He's also a medical doctor and scientist. He said consensus is the business of politics, not science. He said that the great scientific discoveries have never come about by consensus, but by bold scientists who have struck off on their own. When a thing is proven to be a scientific truth, there's no need for consensus. You never hear somebody say "a consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2."
So what are you getting at?
It is possible that humans are causing the Earth to warm. It's also possible that it's a natural cycle -- the Earth is always warming and cooling. It's possible that the increase in greenhouse gases has nothing to do with global warming. We need our scientists to uncover the facts.
That sounds like a heck of a difficult task.
It surely is. Meteorologists have trouble predicting what the weather will be like in 24 hours. I can't imagine how hard it will be to prove what the climate will be like in 100 years, but that is their burden.
You're tough.
The truth is, we all need to get back to the basics. Journalists should hold scientists to account. There is a lot of fiction out there masquerading as fact and we need our journalists to get and report the truth.
What about politicians?
Some are purposely clouding the issue to raise campaign dough and curry favor with some voters. The press must hold them to account, too.
What about the rest of us?
Even if it is proven that we're not causing the Earth to warm, we should act anyhow. Why, in the most ingenious country on Earth, haven't we invented a technology fueled by our most abundant resource?
What resource would that be?
Hot air.

Tom Purcell, a free-lance writer, lives in Mt. Lebanon.

[arkansasbob]

two completely unsupported (and rediculously uninformed) statements.

Thanks for your opinion. It and 75 cents will get me a cup of coffe at mcDonalds.

actually the part of my statement not in parentheses is completely factual, with no opinion added. you just made two statements that are not self-evident and made no attempt to support them. as for the parenthetical portion of my statement, you proved it with your subsequent attempts to support your original miscarriage of reason.

[DogtorEvil]

(2) 97% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 is the result of human activities. Fact 100% (3) the orbit and axis deviations of the Earth should be leading to decreasing average global temperatures and declining Co2 levels. Fact 100% (4) solar activity heats the planet earth and is not responsible for the recent increase in average global temperature. Fact 100%

Fact?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../11/warm11.xml

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1363818.ece

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/te...s_solwind.html

Show where your "facts" come from.

[DogtorEvil]

The point being that air pollution from coal-fired power plants can be controlled or eliminated

This is a completely bogus statement. There is no existing, viable technology that removes CO2 from stack gases/ None.

whereas pollution from cars and trunks are harder to control.

what kind of trunks are you referring to?

[Guisslapp]

^ Elephant trunks. Notoriously hard to control.

[arkansasbob]

^ Elephant trunks. Notoriously hard to control.

you beat me to it. the co2 emissions are brutal, but they also often emit atomized water -- one of the leading causes of the most dangerous greenhouse gas: water vapor.

[Dawgbitten]

You amatuer sceince/climatologist crack me up. I think I will listen to the majority of the EXPERTS.

[Dawgbitten]

I have posed this question on here before and not once has there been one logical answer:

"What is the agenda of the envioronmentalist or sceintist who agree that manmade causes are causing the planet to warm?" and if you answer that question with something in regards to government money, then this question: "who has the money? and why would they buy into something that degrades their market?"

This whole arguement is dumb. MGW is happening. Anytime you drill or dig out 100 million years of carbon resevoirs and turn it into gas, therefore upsetting the system, then you are going to have problems. It is pretty simple really. "but you can't model it." Horseshit.

[saltydawg]

Fact?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../11/warm11.xml

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1363818.ece

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/te...s_solwind.html

Show where your "facts" come from.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ck-or-forcing/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...lobal-warming/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ics-2nd-round/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...y-and-climate/

[saltydawg]

Salty......

First you just keep spouting the doctrine of the CGW and proclaiming it as fact. This is pure BS.

As for the efficiency factor, (setting aside nuclear production of heat)you really can't get much better than a high performance internal combustion engine. Lots of energy packed in a small carrier ( gasoline or diesel). Racing car engines are close to the peak of converting the fuel energy to use as far as efficiency goes. Everything pretty much goes downhill from there. The bottom line is ....... no matter how much Al Gore and the lefty loonies want it to happen......you simply can't change the laws of physics!!!!!!!

A 2 cylinder plug in hybrid is more efficient than a big v-8 in a SUV.

[saltydawg]

actually the part of my statement not in parentheses is completely factual, with no opinion added. you just made two statements that are not self-evident and made no attempt to support them. as for the parenthetical portion of my statement, you proved it with your subsequent attempts to support your original miscarriage of reason.

I think that you have entered the Alice in Wonderland experience of trying to argue that the Emperor has no clothes because you believe he has no clothes. STudy the science.

Oh, wait, you only make use of science when it serves your purposes. Otherwise, it useless.:icon_wink:

[saltydawg]

So much for Cosmic Rays causing AGW.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ys-for-a-spin/

[saltydawg]

Nigel Calder exposed!

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-in-the-times/

[randerizer]

I have posed this question on here before and not once has there been one logical answer:

"What is the agenda of the envioronmentalist or sceintist who agree that manmade causes are causing the planet to warm?" and if you answer that question with something in regards to government money, then this question: "who has the money? and why would they buy into something that degrades their market?"

This whole arguement is dumb. MGW is happening. Anytime you drill or dig out 100 million years of carbon resevoirs and turn it into gas, therefore upsetting the system, then you are going to have problems. It is pretty simple really. "but you can't model it." Horseshit.

The top federal agencies currently funding global warming/climate research include the EPA and the DOE, which happen to have HUGE research budgets. What do you think is the funds distributions by these organizations to "consensus" scientists versus those that raise questions? Do you think the budgets of those organizations for GW research (and associated infrastructure within the agencies) would be as high if they could not generate fear (right or wrong) that global warming IS happening?

Now, take the case of a common researcher beginnig a tenure-track position at a university. In a scientific field at many universities, an unwritten rule for tenure might be that the researcher needs to have 10+ peer-reviewed publications and be generating $1.5M in annual research dollars by their 5th year. Say you've done your graduate work in any of a number of climate associated fields. Point me to the tree with the most fruit? Same reason so many researchers in mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, etc., are trying to add "biotech" to their research arsenal - research always follows funding.

Also, there is simply a huge difference in peer scrutiny between publications that support human global warming and those that provide evidence the other way. You want the 10 papers you need - think it's going to be easier to get those by supporting a popular theory or having to go against the grain?

Not to mention, most research professors are driven by political/social acceptance of their work. Pay attention to how many researchers get acknowledged for "groundbreaking" global warming research.

Simply, the opportunity for research dollars (which also adds to the salaries of most researchers, btw.), the ability to more easily publish papers, and the ability to get political/social acceptance of the research are very good reasons for someone to start his/her research with the mindset that humans ARE contributing to global warming.

And once your hypothesis is set up that way, there's not really a way to reverse it and still save face.