Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Global Warming- need any more proof?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? - 1/15/2009 11:17:27 AM   
Hippiekinkster


Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007
From: Liechtenstein
Status: offline 		No, Sam, it's not just you. It really is completely pointless to discuss the physics and chemistry of GCC with people whose greatest exposure to any maths that require more than removing their shoes consists of calculating an Annuity Due- Present Value WITH the aid of tables. 

As far as I can tell, their position seems to be that burning 84 million barrels of oil a day worldwide produces no heat, and CO2 is not a combustion byproduct.


_____________________________

"We are convinced that freedom w/o Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism w/o freedom is slavery and brutality." Bakunin

“Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by love.” Reinhold Ne

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 81
RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? - 1/15/2009 11:34:09 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline 		All the heat produced by burning fossil fuels eventually radiates off into space, Hippie. And plants absorb CO2...

You're not even at a third grade level here, it's as if you're trying to pull one over on... I don't know. The Bedouin community or something. Your scare rhetoric certainly won't fly over thinking educated people...

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to Hippiekinkster)
Profile   Post #: 82
RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? - 1/15/2009 12:01:55 PM   
ArticMaestro


Posts: 178
Joined: 12/8/2008
Status: offline 		I still think the science is being overstated and misused for political reasons.  And I think it has been geting generally warmer for over 10,000.  Less CO2 output would seem a good thing.  But there are worse pollutants like mercury, that I think present a far greater and more imeddiate threat. 

But the good news, the problem is solved.  As Samboct points out, "  I'd point out that some of our greatest technological advances have been in response to political decree- because the money is finally committed to achieving a goal."   And Obama has said he will make such a decree, and Steven Chu will make it reality.

And the decree is Clean Coal  http://channels.attbusiness.net/index.cfm?fuseAction=viewNewsArticle&nav_id=33&category_name=Washington&article_id=f10e756a2e7f9885650afaf7505b53bfalong with increased nuclear plants, and clean coal will be a reality before we know it.  We (holders of the largest coal depsits on earth) and China (the biggest users of coal on earth, and the largest population), will clean the Earth and make the temperature go back to what it is suppossed to be.  Making money at the same time we tell the Arabs to go eat sand!!

Clean Coal!!  Obama might be ok, or even great.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 83
RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? - 1/15/2009 2:43:58 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
Ah... so now the truth comes out. There is a bias at work on your part, and the "science" you herald is merely a pretext to undermine successful American businesses.

Oil companies provide terrific jobs, and extremely useful products that billions of people the world over rely on for comfort and even for survival. And they're perhaps the one strong industry we have remaining, and yet in your mind they must be destroyed at any cost?

What other little hints can you drop about your political agenda...


quote:

I must admit, from my perspective, I have no love of any oil company (don't know many coal companies) and I'll be delighted when they hit the scrap heap of history. I mean really, do you people enjoy spending thousands of dollars with Exxon, Shell, BP, or whichever every year?


_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 84
RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? - 1/15/2009 3:18:11 PM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		"Oil companies provide terrific jobs, and extremely useful products that billions of people the world over rely on for comfort and even for survival. And they're perhaps the one strong industry we have remaining, and yet in your mind they must be destroyed at any cost? "

LMAO!!!!
 
Let me get this straight.  I want to be able to buy my own electric car (possibly made in this country), which I can fuel with my own solar panel (which also might even be made in this country), to save myself MONEY and I'm being accused of being unpatriotic??? Because spending $1,000-3,000/yr on gasoline from oil companies is helping our economy?  These self same oil companies which buy oil in countries where I would suggest that any female I liked not visit and we're fighting a losing battle in and spending a fortune on our military in both lives and $$$???  Those oil companies?
 
Have you considered that a solar panel which costs $20k could probably charge up an electric car for daily use?  Let's see- fuel cost- $0.  -capital cost for the panel $20k with a lifespan of 20 years plus- compared with say $2,000/yr gas- assuming that gas prices don't do another insane dance due to speculation.  In 10 years it's break even  (OK, probably a couple of years more due to interest costs.)  Wanting to be able to do have my own fueling station for my own electric car is unpatriotic- but buying gasoline made from oil from Venezuela, Nigeria, or the Mideast isn't?  Come on- it's a joke- right?

Sam 

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 85
RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? - 1/15/2009 3:24:24 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
THAT blows the lid off of any pretense you may have held of being any kind of an impartial scientist, now doesn't it.      

You *hate* "Big Oil" and you want to really stick it to 'em... and you don't care if truckers get hurt, if the airline industry takes a hit, or even if poor and / or elderly people who rely on heating fuel suffer.

Tell you what, Sam - farmers need affordable fuel in order to provide us with abundant food, and oil and everything it provides us with would be a far less expensive if the Democrats in congress weren't so busy throwing every hurdle they can possible come up with at the oil industry's feet.


quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

"Oil companies provide terrific jobs, and extremely useful products that billions of people the world over rely on for comfort and even for survival. And they're perhaps the one strong industry we have remaining, and yet in your mind they must be destroyed at any cost? "

LMAO!!!!
 
Let me get this straight.  I want to be able to buy my own electric car (possibly made in this country), which I can fuel with my own solar panel (which also might even be made in this country), to save myself MONEY and I'm being accused of being unpatriotic??? Because spending $1,000-3,000/yr on gasoline from oil companies is helping our economy?  These self same oil companies which buy oil in countries where I would suggest that any female I liked not visit and we're fighting a losing battle in and spending a fortune on our military in both lives and $$$???  Those oil companies?
 
Have you considered that a solar panel which costs $20k could probably charge up an electric car for daily use?  Let's see- fuel cost- $0.  -capital cost for the panel $20k with a lifespan of 20 years plus- compared with say $2,000/yr gas- assuming that gas prices don't do another insane dance due to speculation.  In 10 years it's break even  (OK, probably a couple of years more due to interest costs.)  Wanting to be able to do have my own fueling station for my own electric car is unpatriotic- but buying gasoline made from oil from Venezuela, Nigeria, or the Mideast isn't?  Come on- it's a joke- right?

Sam 





< Message edited by Sanity -- 1/15/2009 4:26:23 PM >

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 86
RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? - 1/15/2009 5:00:26 PM   
vvdom


Posts: 1
Joined: 6/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Wanting to be able to do have my own fueling station for my own electric car is unpatriotic- but buying gasoline made from oil from Venezuela, Nigeria, or the Mideast isn't? Come on- it's a joke- right?


Where do you think those semiconductors in that solar panel are coming from? Wisconsin?
Wanna keep it local? Your only choice is nuclear... Well, neighbor from the north has to help of course, since NIMBYs won't let any exploration be done in US. Oh you may want to check out this - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/ and this http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard_nasa_thermometer/

< Message edited by vvdom -- 1/15/2009 5:03:21 PM >

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 87
RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? - 1/15/2009 5:13:54 PM   
ArticMaestro


Posts: 178
Joined: 12/8/2008
Status: offline 		Samboct, who is stoping you from buying an electric car and a solar panel?  Go ahead save yourself some $.    They do last for 20ish years, but the effiency decreases significantly over time.

But are we to assume you only use your car at night?  If you leave it plugged in all day to charge it.  And you never travell in your car? 

But it doesn't matter Obama and Chu are going to give us Clean Coal by decree.  Right?

(in reply to vvdom)
Profile   Post #: 88
RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? - 1/15/2009 5:29:41 PM   
LookieNoNookie


Posts: 12216
Joined: 8/9/2008
Status: offline 		Why does it matter whether it's warming or cooling?

It's not rocket science to realize that in our age, we're capable of fucking up the balance.  But as importantly, it's not unclear we're running out of resources.

But let's just say for a moment that we're not...only that it could happen.

Since we're so evolved...and scientifically so masterful (as compared to previous times...very likely not when compared to 500 years from now), why not do better?  Why not design and purchase cars that get (some kind of) better fuel efficiency?  Why not have the worlds governments put 1% of their GDP into a world science foundation solely to benefit these kinds of things (instead of killing people in unending wars for what most would agree have always been about resources)?

And so we find out in 500 years...oil replenishes itself as fast as we can drill for it...it was never going to run out....super...great stuff....yaaaaahoooooo...the shit literally bubbles over just like in the Beverly Hillbillies every time you shoot a 12 gauge into a swamp....but if we could harness the sun to power most things, and only use oil to grease the wheels of our machines....who (other than the Saudis) would falter because of same?

And in the process we insure better air, cleaner water and certainly fewer aircraft carriers in the gulf protecting what we should be able to produce at home anyways.

Maybe we could end up using that same amount of steel making some real nice barbeque's for ourselves instead of buying every one the Chinese make.

Nobody in any country in history has ever before even been in a position to see true energy independence as anything more than a remote fantasy.

It won't happen in my lifetime...but all the components of the solution are literally in every library and entirely doable in the next generation's lifetime.

(Doesn't seem like a hell of a bad trade off to me).

< Message edited by LookieNoNookie -- 1/15/2009 6:01:17 PM >

(in reply to ncprincess)
Profile   Post #: 89
RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? - 1/15/2009 9:23:06 PM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		"Where do you think those semiconductors in that solar panel are coming from? Wisconsin?
Wanna keep it local? Your only choice is nuclear... Well, neighbor from the north has to help of course, since NIMBYs won't let any exploration be done in US. Oh you may want to check out this - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/ and this http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard_nasa_thermometer/"

Two (well, maybe three points here)

1)  There's no denying that the temperature monitoring is perhaps the weakest part of the global climate change hypothesis.  The data I've seen have been convincing- but it is possible that the ocean temperatures have been calculated incorrectly since the surface temperature is only a small fraction of ocean water.  It's still a little tough to get around the CO2 greenhouse effect, but it is possible that there are some unknown mechanisms cooling the deep oceans or that the original baseline of ocean temperature were in error.

2)  There's lots of solar technology under development.  I doubt that the existing Si panel technology will have a dominant market position in 10 years-it's not very efficient.  I think a GE multijunction cell hit something like 49% efficiency.  But I'd rather buy the relatively small quantity of minerals needed (very thin layers, only a few atoms thick) from Africa and recycle them rather than buy oil.

3)  As shown in other threads- the nuclear option isn't so great.  The nuclear industry receives enormous subsidies for waste disposal and insurance- both of which are the taxpayers responsibility which is how they claim that their power is cheaper than anything else. Couple that with all the countries saying that they want nuclear power are also the countries where the state department says we're worried about them developing bomb technology and I suspect nuclear power doesn't look so hot.  Let's face it- without a nuclear power program, neither Iraq nor Iran would be close to a nuclear bomb.  It's really much easier to keep track of plutonium and uranium by mass spec if there's no use for it outside of bomb making.  Nuclear plants are also only really useful in high population density areas without the infrastructure to move the power further.  There's a nice analogy from the computer industry- nuclear power plants are mainframes, and PCs are renewables.  Let me point out that most of the computing we do is now highly distributed, rather than mainframe.  Why should power generation be any different?  While a coal plant or nuclear plant may need a lot of capital, maintenance and human monitoring, a solar panel does not.  Nor does a wind turbine- or a geothermal installation-all of which run without the addition of fuel.


Sam



(in reply to LookieNoNookie)
Profile   Post #: 90
RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? - 1/20/2009 12:30:57 AM   
gman992


Posts: 120
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline 		Really? Is that why I'm freezing my ass off in Cleveland, Ohio? Have you noticed now that people who believe in global warming are now saying "climate change?" They can't make a case for global cooling so they fall back to a neutral sounding --"climate change."

< Message edited by gman992 -- 1/20/2009 12:32:28 AM >

(in reply to ncprincess)
Profile   Post #: 91
RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? - 1/20/2009 6:07:12 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
The biggest problem with wind and solar is ampacity.

You need mega amps to seasonally heat and cool millions of homes,  and to run all the stoves and ovens and water heaters other appliances that we've become accustomed to. And now, people are talking about plugging in billions of toxic-waste filled batteries every night to power millions and millions of additional cars which will be devoted to a daily commute.

And what about industry. Shut it down?

We need more power, and not less! How much of the countryside do you want to devote to wind turbines, and or land for additional power lines running from every hill side or canyon ridge there is?

The wind turbines will require toxic waste-filled batteries too, because the wind is never steady. Will the "Green" lobby allow us to open up or expand all the additional lead mines and smelters that will be needed? How green is lead, or any of the other toxic metals used in modern batteries?

No, nuclear is the way to go. It's proven safe and efficient, and it's so safe and easy even the (foreign nationality here) can do it.


_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 92
RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? - 1/20/2009 6:55:20 AM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		Oh good grief!

1)  Power is measured in watts- not amperes.
2)  Nuclear works fine for base load, but sucks at fluctuating demand- which is what's increasing by the way.  Wind isn't so great on that score, but solar is since peak demand for air conditioning generally goes hand in hand with a sunny day.
3)  Where on earth does the idea that we need more power come from?  As most of our economy has moved away from smokestack industries such as steel production to silicon production, we produce higher value goods with much lower mass and consequently need less power.  The only reason we need more power is a lack of enforcement of environmental regulations and utilities that make more money by supplying more power.
4)  Lithium ion batteries are actually pretty safe ecologically, and there are lots of alternatives to lead acid and nickel cell batteries which offer higher energy density and reduced toxic profiles.  Flywheel technology is also being used to damp out spikes in power demand.  See Beacon Power corporation.


Sam

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 93
RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? - 1/20/2009 7:14:36 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline 		 
Here's a shocking discovery for you, sam (SHOCKING!) - simple formulas that show how watts and amps are interchangeable units of measurement for electrical power:

http://www.powerstream.com/Amps-Watts.htm

Here's another fact that will be a complete surprise for you too - while you may be eager to give up on all our industry, not everyone else is. Just ask Detroit! There's still industry in Idaho and every other state, too - startling, isn't it.

With cheap, abundant power we can be far more competitive - and there is absolutely no reason why we can't be.





< Message edited by Sanity -- 1/20/2009 8:10:03 AM >

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 94
RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? - 1/20/2009 8:00:56 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
~ Fast Reply ~
The debate would be much more productive and generate more useful results if the pragmatic, "can we", "how can we", aspects were being addressed without the doom saying religious based theory of human influence to climate change.

It requires hypocrisy. Of course humans have affected nature. Europe used to be covered in forests; where's the call for reforestation of the entirety of the UK, and Germany? If you live in anything, walk on a sidewalk, manipulate your personal space, use anything outside its nature, 'nature' is effected. A 'true believer' would be more effective taking themselves out of the equation, instead of investing in hypocritical 'carbon offset credits'. However, any economic, political, agenda which does not stand up to observable results can not be considered 'science' and be taken in absolute.

Any absolute, or 'only way' is wrong. However, I doubt either side will take the pragmatic approach. 

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 95
RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? - 1/20/2009 8:17:15 AM   
Petruchio


Posts: 1615
Joined: 2/6/2005
Status: offline 		Global warming was forecast back in the 1950s and has pretty much followed the predictions except it's happening faster than expected. It's not easy for people to believe scientists when they see ice, snow, and record cold, but in fact, that's part of the prediction.

If you've ever had your refrigerator or air conditioner freeze up, you see your food (or yourself) getting warm while you're staring at a plethora of ice. As the poles melt, they interfere with the Gulf Stream in North America which under normal conditions warms the US and Europe. That means the northern continents will experience cold spells even as the oceans warm.

The debate isn't among scientists but between scientists and right-wing politicians. Granted I have a scientific background, but even without it, I wouldn't believe the politicians.

(in reply to ncprincess)
Profile   Post #: 96
RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? - 1/20/2009 9:05:30 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline 		Why I can never be a 'believer'...
quote:

ORIGINAL: Petruchio

Global warming was forecast back in the 1950s and has pretty much followed the predictions
 Arbitrary date of benchmarking event. Why not start at Roman era Britannia and point to global cooling?

quote:

except it's happening faster than expected.
Create a sense of urgency.
quote:

It's not easy for people to believe scientists when they see ice, snow, and record cold, but in fact, that's part of the prediction.
The discounting as naive any direct observation.

quote:

If you've ever had your refrigerator or air conditioner freeze up, you see your food (or yourself) getting warm while you're staring at a plethora of ice. As the poles melt, they interfere with the Gulf Stream in North America which under normal conditions warms the US and Europe. That means the northern continents will experience cold spells even as the oceans warm.
Earth as a closed few square feet of freezer. That settles it!

quote:

The debate isn't among scientists but between scientists and right-wing politicians.
The labeling and mocking as politically based, of any naysayer. So any scientist, prior reference can be used, who says global warming is bullshit is, by this account a 'right-wing' politician. - "BURN THEM!"
quote:

 Granted I have a scientific background, but even without it, I wouldn't believe the politicians.
Concluding with, of course - I know more than anyone on the other side.

I'm sure 'priests' like this chill any of their drinks in nearby free flowing mountain streams they have near, work only for positive environmental impact companies, use ice harvested in winter and kept in caves to be used as needed, never buy any product that doesn't have a 0 net carbon offset impact; and contribute time, money, and resources to their beliefs; at least the 'orthodox' among them.

(in reply to Petruchio)
Profile   Post #: 97
RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? - 1/20/2009 9:53:16 AM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		Sanity

Try this definition of power- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)

There is no need for useless gobbledygook such as "ampacity"- its merely confusing.  And I'll spare you the discussion as to why watts which use high V, low A are better than watts using low V, high A.

News flash for you - I haven't given up on our industries- far from it.  Industry requires innovation to remain competitive with the rest of the world- and building larger numbers and bigger sizes of obsolete technology led the Soviet Union to be the powerhouse that it is today.  We've been developing new technology to deliver power without the need for continuously inputting ever diminishing fuel feedstocks and it will probably be cheaper than using coal or nuclear.  I work on helping commercialize this new technology- and I have no interest in seeing it manufactured in China.  But the rest of the world has awakened to the possibilities of using wind and solar (and geothermal) and the US is falling behind.  You can figure out what your part in falling behind is.  As an aside, I've pointed out previously that the US was the world leader in wind power in the early 80s and that the technology that Vestas used to become the 800 pound gorilla of the wind industry was developed by NASA.


Sam

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 98
RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? - 1/20/2009 11:26:34 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Sanity

Try this definition of power- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)


Nice link, sam. Click on it and it takes you to a page that says "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.".


quote:

There is no need for useless gobbledygook such as "ampacity"- its merely confusing. 


It's only confusing to those who don't have the slightest understanding of electrical theory. "Ampacity" is one of the most basic terms in the field, just like "Watts" and "Voltage".


quote:

And I'll spare you the discussion as to why watts which use high V, low A are better than watts using low V, high A.


Why. Because it's totally irrelevant to the discussion? Or for some mysterious reason only great scientists such as yourself (who don't seem to have even a basic understanding of electrical theory) can possibly know...

Actually sam, I learned all about power factors during my first year of electrical apprenticeship... and it's not any big mystery anyway. It's basic stuff.

quote:

News flash for you - I haven't given up on our industries- far from it.  Industry requires innovation to remain competitive with the rest of the world- and building larger numbers and bigger sizes of obsolete technology led the Soviet Union to be the powerhouse that it is today.  We've been developing new technology to deliver power without the need for continuously inputting ever diminishing fuel feedstocks and it will probably be cheaper than using coal or nuclear.  I work on helping commercialize this new technology- and I have no interest in seeing it manufactured in China.  But the rest of the world has awakened to the possibilities of using wind and solar (and geothermal) and the US is falling behind.  You can figure out what your part in falling behind is.  As an aside, I've pointed out previously that the US was the world leader in wind power in the early 80s and that the technology that Vestas used to become the 800 pound gorilla of the wind industry was developed by NASA.
Sam


If we're falling behind as you claim perhaps you shouldn't be quite so quick to confess your involvement.

In all seriousness, wind power should be a part of the total equation, but it's peanuts compared to the amount of power that we're going to need if we want to continue to enjoy our status as a first-world economy.





< Message edited by Sanity -- 1/20/2009 11:52:37 AM >

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 99
RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? - 1/20/2009 11:27:33 AM   
Irishknight


Posts: 2016
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline 		I am already working to install solar panels on every building I erect for my renaissance faire.  Anyone else erecting one will be required to allow that installation as well.  Perhaps if we would take that approach with every building we put up in this country, we could stop arguing over nuclear, fossil fuel and a whole list of other options.  Every house would be contributing to the power grid of the country.  Add those wind turbines that many are beginning to place on and near their homes and we would have a cleaner world.  The scientists in support of global warming would have to find a new scapegoat for what a growing percentage of scientists are already calling a natural climate change cycle.

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 100
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109