In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:
Karl Denninger wrote:
In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:
Global Warming Is Expected to Raise Hurricane Intensity
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: September 30, 2004
Global warming is likely to produce a significant increase in the intensity
and rainfall of hurricanes in coming decades, according to the most
comprehensive computer analysis done so far.
Hilarious.
By the 2080's, seas warmed by rising atmospheric concentrations of heat-
trapping greenhouse gases could cause a typical hurricane to intensify
about an extra half step on the five-step scale of destructive power, says
the study, done on supercomputers at the Commerce Department's Geophysical
Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J. And rainfall up to 60 miles
from the core would be nearly 20 percent more intense.
Note the logical problem with this.
There is no consensus over whether global warming IS EVEN HAPPENING, and
further, there is a problem with distribution of the warming - which
distributed where such a study needs it to for this to happen.
Indeed, the "evidence" is completely missing for such a postulate.
The truth, Harry, as I'm sure you are aware of, is that there are cycles in
both hurricane activity and global climate. They're NORMAL, and caused by
environmental factors that are outside the scope of man's control.
Karl, I am NOT a physical scientist. But I am a good reader. I've read a
lot about global warming, including "dissertations" on both sides of
what has become a politicized issue.
Yep. There is plenty of dissertation work being done.
The verdict is not in, but there is a lot of evidence that indicates the
climate is changing,
The climate is [always] changing. The question is not whether the climate
in one place is changing or not, of course.
and that the warming that is taking place
The evidence is lacking that such warming is taking place.
is having
deleterious effects now and in the future, and that we are having some
impact on the "environmental factors."
There is little evidence that "we" are having impact on these factors.
It behooves us to take some steps to lessen our negative impact on the
environment, especially since we do not know with certainty which side
is ride.
It does? Why?
We need to answer some questions before we start waving our arms around on
this:
1. The United States Government, under pressure by the "greenies",
has EXPLICITLY acted AGAINST the interest of reducing greenhouse
gasses. Carbon Dioxide production, specifically, is the "bugaboo"
here, simply because it dwarfs by several orders of magnitude the
other "greenhouse gasses." As an example while we measure other
greenhouse gasses emitted by a vehicle in pounds per year, we
measure CO2 production in TONS per year.
Indeed, if you look at the EPA "greenness" ratings of vehicles, they
INTENTIONALLY omit the production of CO2 from their formula! This
is grossly dishonest, since CO2 dwarfs every other pollutant
emitted.
There is one simple way to reduce greenhouse emissions by 40%
immediately - make an immediate change to compression ignition
(diesel) engines and away from gasoline ones.
Why? Because diesels are approximately 40% more efficient
gallon-per-gallon on fuel, and CO2 production is directly ratable
to fuel consumed.
However, the environmentalist whackos have imposed such stringent
requirements on OTHER emissions by diesels that there is only one
company selling them in the US today (Volkswagen) All the others
have given up due to the impossibility of meeting the total fleet
emission requirements.
2. CO2 is not a problem UNLESS it comes from the combustion of
long-cycle hydrocarbons (e.g. petroleum from the ground.) CO2
produced by burning a plant which was contemporarily grown is a
zero-sum game - the carbon is bound when the CO2 is removed from
the air by the plant, and returned to the atmosphere when the plant
is burned. As such diesel engines can be made COMPLETELY CARBON
CYCLE NEUTRAL, since they can burn damn near ANY oil for fuel,
including vegetable based oils. You can, in fact, make said fuel in
your GARAGE! I've done it as a test - works fine, and the exhaust
smells like french fries.
Why is this not done? Its not economically feasible. Why? Farm
subsidies, mostly. If we farmed blue-green algae (which produces,
acre-for-acre, more fuel oil than any other plant, and can be grown
on what is not now thought of "arable" land) between that and
recycling waste vegetable oil (e.g. McDonalds' frying oil) we
could produce something on the order of 40% of our diesel fuel
needs without touching a drop of petroleum.
Between (1) and (2) we could cut vehicle-related CO2 emissions by some SIXTY
PERCENT, and virtually eliminate our requirement for Middle-East oil!
Why haven't we done it?
The Sierra Club and their ilk, who scream bloody murder about ANYTHING that
increases ANY pollutant's emission, even when a much more important one is
cut by TONS for a few POUNDS of increased emission of the other! Indeed,
they not only scream, they SUE to prevent such plans from going forward.
Want to really make a difference? Get rid of the Sierra Club's influence on
these matters and mandate that within 5 years all new motor vehicles with
more than three wheels and sold in the US must have compression ignition
engines.
Its simple, really - if we want to do it.
BTW, I already do this. My Jetta TDI gets close to 50mpg in combined
service - roughly 20mpg more than the SAME VEHICLE with a gasoline engine
in it. If there were no price controls on farm products I could buy
biodiesel for within 5% to what I pay now for petro fuel - and would,
since it runs cleaner and smoother than the petro fuel does.
--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind