Global Warming Cont...

[saltydawg]

Efficient?????? A statement like that shows that you simply don't know what "efficiency" means! The term "efficiency" I was referring to is defined by how much of the energy contained in the source fuel can be delivered to (in the case of a vehicle) the drive wheels and transport a given load over a given distance in a given amount of time.

In your simplistic example the 2 cylinder plug in hybrid gets its' "plug-in" energy from electricity which has to be distributed from its' generation source at significant energy loss, and the electricity was generated from a source fuel at a significant energy loss. As for its' 2 cylinder engine -- yes it is efficient in and of itself -- and the hybrid's ability to recover some of its' normal friction loss from braking activity does help out.

But what if you have 6 or 7 people to transport. Not going to do that in a 2 cylinder hybrid --unless of course you make 2 trips. In this situation your big V-8 SUV wins in overall efficiency.

I rarely see a large SUV with 7 or 8 passengers in it.

Bill, how efficient is a nuclear power plant?

[Guisslapp]

Your keen sense of smell?? You got to be kidding. Your links just show that anyone can start a blog and post BS.

Exactly! And it would be naive to think "scientists" aren't above it.

[saltydawg]

(1) I don't dispute this one way or the other. I do dispute that the "proof" is 100%. The "measured" data is extremely sparse and is extremely highly clustered. Any technique to "average" this data into a "single earth temperature" suffers from enormous uncertainty. About the only way to do it would be with some type of geostatistical kriging analysis which attempts to account for the "nugget effect". And even with this technique the results can have wide variability and error spread.

(2) Anyone who says that there is 100% PROOF that 97% of the rise in CO2 is due to human activities has been drinkinf far too much of the Koolade!!

(3) This is absurd!!!!! Orbit and axis deviations could result in either warming or cooling, depending on the directional displacement from the "Normal" orientation. So your #3 is 100% wrong!!!!!

(4) "solar activity heats the planet earth and is not responsible for the recent increase in average global temperature."??????????????????? This doesn't even make sense!
I thought the "global" temperature you and Al keep preaching about was that of the planet earth.

Ok, noted your disputes with (1), (2), (3) and (4).

With(1) i would say that the probablility of the average global temperature not rising over the past 50 years as not been doubted by the vast majority of the world's scientists.

With (2), i would say that the probability of the CO2 rise not being related to the burning of fossile fuels is considered by the leading world's scientists as non-existent.

With (3), the movements of the Earth's axis and orbit are well known as are their relationships to the Earth's climate. So, what say thee? Where are we in that relationship?

With (4), what planet are you on?

[saltydawg]

Exactly! And it would be naive to think "scientists" aren't above it.

I will post a short resume of the scientists on Real Climate if you will do the same for the people on the links you just posted.

[Guisslapp]

I will post a short resume of the scientists on Real Climate if you will do the same for the people on the links you just posted.

Right, because having credentials makes you above bullshitting. BTW, no need to post 'em they are easy to find on their blog.

[saltydawg]

Right, because having credentials makes you above bullshitting. BTW, no need to post 'em they are easy to find on their blog.

Sure would like to watch you depose these guys about global warming. What would be your first question?


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...tributor-bios/

[Guisslapp]

I will post a short resume of the scientists on Real Climate if you will do the same for the people on the links you just posted.

And the background of the posters in the first two links are irrelevant to the arguments that they raised. The first person was talking about RealClimate.org's reaction to one of his posts - the fact they chose to censor it (the reaction being the issue not the substance or the credibility of his post). The second person was talking about RealClimate.org's reaction to another AGW advocate's paper (you can see their reaction on the site - I just didn't want to take credit for this guy's observation).

I am not faulting the scientists for having an opinion. We all have them. I am not even faulting them for expressing it or any facts - that is great, too. What bothers me somewhat is that they act like it is an open an honest forum that is impartial to the viewpoints expressed. From second hand accounts and my own observation it does look heavily moderated (I am not going to make the leap and call it outright censorship). If you reread my other post you will see that I pointed out that I do not think it is bad as the bloggers are making it out to be.

[Guisslapp]

Sure would like to watch you depose these guys about global warming. What would be your first question?


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...tributor-bios/

"Isn't it correct Dr. _____ that you are only partly full of shit?"

That one gets them everytime.

[saltydawg]

And the background of the posters in the first two links are irrelevant to the arguments that they raised. The first person was talking about RealClimate.org's reaction to one of his posts - the fact they chose to censor it (the reaction being the issue not the substance or the credibility of his post). The second person was talking about RealClimate.org's reaction to another AGW advocate's paper (you can see their reaction on the site - I just didn't want to take credit for this guy's observation).

I am not faulting the scientists for having an opinion. We all have them. I am not even faulting them for expressing it or any facts - that is great, too. What bothers me somewhat is that they act like it is an open an honest forum that is impartial to the viewpoints expressed. From second hand accounts and my own observation it does look heavily moderated (I am not going to make the leap and call it outright censorship). If you reread my other post you will see that I pointed out that I do not think it is bad as the bloggers are making it out to be.

Why don't you ask them a sincere question/statement and see what kind of response you get instead of relying on the statment of a person whom you know ABSOLUTELY nothing about. My impression of the website is that it appears to me to be balanced and fair.

[Guisslapp]

Why don't you ask them a sincere question/statement and see what kind of response you get instead of relying on the statment of a person whom you know ABSOLUTELY nothing about. My impression of the website is that it appears to me to be balanced and fair.

Maybe I will, but I would feel obligated to search the site first to see if the question was answered. That would distract me from posting on this board just when my post-count is starting to skyrocket.

[arkansasbob]

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:

With (2), i would say that the probability of the CO2 rise not being related to the burning of fossile fuels is considered by the leading world's scientists as non-existent.

it's been so long since i posted on this thread that i had forgotten how funny some of salty's responses are. lets not forget, folks, salty is the expert on global warming, and he alone is capable of discerning good science from bad, based on his infinite knowledge and unbiased wisdom.

[saltydawg]

it's been so long since i posted on this thread that i had forgotten how funny some of salty's responses are. lets not forget, folks, salty is the expert on global warming, and he alone is capable of discerning good science from bad, based on his infinite knowledge and unbiased wisdom.

Come on, ArkBob, pray tell us what is causing the atmospheric CO2 levels to go up over the last 50+ years.

Is is cosmic rays or increased populaton growth?

[arkansasbob]

Come on, ArkBob, pray tell us what is causing the atmospheric CO2 levels to go up over the last 50+ years.

Is is cosmic rays or increased populaton growth?

are you so diametrically opposed to logic that you cannot post a single sentence that does not defy it?

[TYLERTECHSAS]

HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER SNOW/ICE STORM

HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER SNOW/ICE STORM
HEARING NOTICE
Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET

The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”

The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later.

DC WEATHER REPORT:

Wednesday: Freezing rain in the morning...then a chance of snow in the afternoon. Ice accumulation of less than one quarter of an inch. Highs in the mid 30s. Northwest winds around 20 mph. Chance of precipitation 80 percent.

Wednesday Night: Partly cloudy. Lows around 18. Northwest winds around 20 mph.
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids...EnQt0_D9.syg--

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

[dawg80]

Come on, ArkBob, pray tell us what is causing the atmospheric CO2 levels to go up over the last 50+ years.

Is is cosmic rays or increased populaton growth?

I hear it's cows farting. Least, that's what they say.