|
..... there is a lot of evidence that indicates the
climate is changing, and that the warming that is taking place is having deleterious effects now and in the future, and that we are having some impact on the "environmental factors." Yep, "a lot of evidence." In fact, there is a heck of a lot of evidence that the climate is warming, and little or no evidence at all that it's not. Hmm... what a puzzler... Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: The problem is just like which side of the aisle you sit in church - the good side or the other good side. Global warming science is shaky at best. Recent studies in Antartica indicate that the ozone hole that everybody was shaky about ten or so years ago may also have a natural cycle. We just haven't been here long enough, not is there enough human historical data, to make that kind of decision. So, let's go ahead and keep messing up the planet full speed, is that your answer? It does not mean that some sort of pollution isn't happening - it is happening. But that's different than Global Warming. The whole Global Warming thing is somebodies pet theory and that's about it. Actually, it's a LOT of people's "pet theory." No certain explanation yet, but... Do you have kids? Want your great grandkids to live in artifical bubbles under the poles? Want to take the chance that it's totally a natural phenomenon & we are not affecting it? The risk is no less than the future of the human race. Personally, I don't like gambling with that stake, and I think it's stupid to advocate doing so... especially for the sake of convenience & temporary political advantage. Greg wrote: The guys on the Weather Channel say this is NOT caused by global warming. Warming would cause another El Nino and that tends to suppress hurricanes. Yeah, but what do they know? We have had a higher incidence of El Nino years of late, and that doesn't seem to supress typhoons. The reality is there are two issues with global warming anyway. 1. Is it really getting warmer? 2. Is that a natural process or something man made? Since the history of the planet is marked with warming and cooling cycles, we should really look long and hard at #2. Agreed. The answer to #1 is unequivocally YES! A quick look at ocean temps, glaciers, icecap thickness, and a number of other measures all point at a warming trend. So far I don't know of a single one that points to a cooling trend. Coincidence? I think not. Now about #2... a firm "don't know for sure." But would it be smarter to play it safe? Throwing another virgin in the volcano never kept it from erupting but it seemed to make the witch doctor and his followers feel like they were doing something. Hmm, that reminds me, somebody do something about all these volcanos, too! Regards Doug King |
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 |
JohnH wrote:
Rush Limbaugh would think you're a flake, Doug. Rush Limbaugh is a fat drug addict. Should I worry about his opinion? DSK |
JohnH wrote:
Rush Limbaugh would think you're a flake, Doug. John H Ahhhh...an ass like John Whoring knows what the ass Rush Limbaugh would htink. What a surprise. -- We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah. What, me worry? |
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 16:08:01 -0400, DSK wrote:
..... there is a lot of evidence that indicates the climate is changing, and that the warming that is taking place is having deleterious effects now and in the future, and that we are having some impact on the "environmental factors." Yep, "a lot of evidence." In fact, there is a heck of a lot of evidence that the climate is warming, and little or no evidence at all that it's not. Hmm... what a puzzler... Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: The problem is just like which side of the aisle you sit in church - the good side or the other good side. Global warming science is shaky at best. Recent studies in Antartica indicate that the ozone hole that everybody was shaky about ten or so years ago may also have a natural cycle. We just haven't been here long enough, not is there enough human historical data, to make that kind of decision. So, let's go ahead and keep messing up the planet full speed, is that your answer? No, that's not my answer and if you had taken the time to actually read what I wrote, previously and currently, you wouldn't be jerking you knee off. Later, Tom ----------- "Angling may be said to be so like the mathematics that it can never be fully learnt..." Izaak Walton "The Compleat Angler", 1653 |
|
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 16:08:01 -0400, DSK wrote:
..... there is a lot of evidence that indicates the climate is changing, and that the warming that is taking place is having deleterious effects now and in the future, and that we are having some impact on the "environmental factors." Yep, "a lot of evidence." In fact, there is a heck of a lot of evidence that the climate is warming, and little or no evidence at all that it's not. Hmm... what a puzzler... Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: The problem is just like which side of the aisle you sit in church - the good side or the other good side. Global warming science is shaky at best. Recent studies in Antartica indicate that the ozone hole that everybody was shaky about ten or so years ago may also have a natural cycle. We just haven't been here long enough, not is there enough human historical data, to make that kind of decision. So, let's go ahead and keep messing up the planet full speed, is that your answer? It does not mean that some sort of pollution isn't happening - it is happening. But that's different than Global Warming. The whole Global Warming thing is somebodies pet theory and that's about it. Actually, it's a LOT of people's "pet theory." No certain explanation yet, but... Do you have kids? Yes I do - and one of them is an actual, honest-to-god geo-physical scientist - not some hammer head dweeb who can't read and just wants to tickle his twinkie by picking fights over who's got the biggest bleeding heart. I'm on your side jackass - if you can't parse that, then go bother somebody else. I'm not interested in your "opinion" - I'm interested in the facts and the facts are this: Global warming is not proven. Pollution can have more devastating effects on civilization than something that nobody knows how to even describe, never mind deal with. That facts are that over the period of observations going back at least 600 years to the 15th century, sunspots and the solar cycle have been observed to directly affect climate. Recently, in the last 300 or so years, observers of a scientific bent also observed things like Gulf Stream movement, the mid-latitude currents like El Do yourself a favour and actually read a scientific treatise on the subject rather than some jerk off tabloid written by a bearded nutcase. All the best, Tom -------------- "What the hell's the deal with this newsgroup... is there a computer terminal in the day room of some looney bin somewhere?" Bilgeman - circa 2004 |
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 16:08:01 -0400, DSK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: The problem is just like which side of the aisle you sit in church - the good side or the other good side. Global warming science is shaky at best. Recent studies in Antartica indicate that the ozone hole that everybody was shaky about ten or so years ago may also have a natural cycle. We just haven't been here long enough, not is there enough human historical data, to make that kind of decision. So, let's go ahead and keep messing up the planet full speed, is that your answer? Did I say that? Here, let me answer for you. No, I did not. Just because I'm a nice guy at heart, I'll help you parse what I said. What I said was that evidence of Global Warming, as a long term environmental event, may or may not exist - the science is not proven, the data sets are not established - in short, what constitutes Global Warming is not established. If you can't establish the basic parameters of what constitutes Global Warming, or even reach a consensus on what constitutes Global Warming, then you can't really say it exists. The simple fact is this - historical observations made over the past 500 years or so have produced an interesting, and odd, result. If the normal sun cycle, which occurs over an eleven/onehundred ten year cycle, happens to coincide with the mid-latitude current movement cycle and in particular the South Equatorial Indian Current, the Mid-Atlantic storm cycle accelerates. A lot of historical research into this facet of atmorpheric research has pretty much proven that when this sequence of events occurs, you get big storms. Usually, that cycle is balanced by El Niño and La Niña. Secondly, the ozone layer hole over Antartica, based on geophysical evidence (snow cores) may also have a natural cycle. Note the may. There isn't enough evidence to make a sure bet one way or the other although hard evidence would seem to point to the natural cycle. It does not mean that some sort of pollution isn't happening - it is happening. But that's different than Global Warming. The whole Global Warming thing is somebodies pet theory and that's about it. Actually, it's a LOT of people's "pet theory." I'm sure it is, but that doesn't make it true. It's a theory, not a set of facts. No certain explanation yet, but... Do you have kids? As a matter of fact, I do. One of which is a geoscientist - a physicist actually. He knows a lot about this subject. Studies ocean currents and their effects on the atmosphere. Also knows a lot about the solar cycle - did his dissertation on them in fact. Want your great grandkids to live in artifical bubbles under the poles? Want to take the chance that it's totally a natural phenomenon & we are not affecting it? The risk is no less than the future of the human race. Well, you see, here is where we part company. Yeah, I pretty much am on the side of science on this one and the science says says it's bull****. I'm willing to take the chance that Global Warming is just junk science. Even if, by the remotest chance, it's true, then it's already started and reversing the effect will be totally out of our hands. I don't think you have any idea of just how large a mass we're talking about here - it's pretty startling. The fact is that pollution cannot be equated with Global Warming. I am pro environment. I do believe in limiting the damage to the Earth by random acts of pollution. I want clean water, clean air, clean sheets to sleep on and not have to clean my windows three times per year. I want unwarranted destruction of the rain forests stopped. I want timber stands to stay timber stands with good management, not clear cutting. I don't have a problem with Artic piplines or drilling, but I want it done responsibly. I want wind power and solar power and reactors that aren't dirty. I want diesel/electric engines instead of gas engines. I want to walk the streets of Calcutta and not have to wear a gas mask to cut the pollution, human and industrial, and be able to breathe. I want idiot developers to stop coming up my driveway and trying to buy my property for ridiculous amounts of money. I don't want to have to continue to pick up trash out of the oceans and bays and fresh water lakes that I travel over. So we want the same thing - I just don't believe in Global Warming. It's fuzzy logic at it's finest. Touchy, feely worthless nonsense. Personally, I don't like gambling with that stake, and I think it's stupid to advocate doing so... especially for the sake of convenience & temporary political advantage. You may think it's stupid, but the fact is that it's still voodoo science and will stay that way until somebody comes up with evidence that ALL scientists can agree on - real evidence - hard science. The kind of evidence that you can lay the mathematical lumber to if you will and come up with an answer. Take care. Tom "The beatings will stop when morale improves." E. Teach, 1717 |
DSK wrote:
..... there is a lot of evidence that indicates the climate is changing, and that the warming that is taking place is having deleterious effects now and in the future, and that we are having some impact on the "environmental factors." Yep, "a lot of evidence." In fact, there is a heck of a lot of evidence that the climate is warming, and little or no evidence at all that it's not. Hmm... what a puzzler... Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: The problem is just like which side of the aisle you sit in church - the good side or the other good side. Global warming science is shaky at best. Recent studies in Antartica indicate that the ozone hole that everybody was shaky about ten or so years ago may also have a natural cycle. We just haven't been here long enough, not is there enough human historical data, to make that kind of decision. So, let's go ahead and keep messing up the planet full speed, is that your answer? It does not mean that some sort of pollution isn't happening - it is happening. But that's different than Global Warming. The whole Global Warming thing is somebodies pet theory and that's about it. Actually, it's a LOT of people's "pet theory." No certain explanation yet, but... Do you have kids? Want your great grandkids to live in artifical bubbles under the poles? Want to take the chance that it's totally a natural phenomenon & we are not affecting it? The risk is no less than the future of the human race. Personally, I don't like gambling with that stake, and I think it's stupid to advocate doing so... especially for the sake of convenience & temporary political advantage. Greg wrote: The guys on the Weather Channel say this is NOT caused by global warming. Warming would cause another El Nino and that tends to suppress hurricanes. Yeah, but what do they know? We have had a higher incidence of El Nino years of late, and that doesn't seem to supress typhoons. The reality is there are two issues with global warming anyway. 1. Is it really getting warmer? 2. Is that a natural process or something man made? Since the history of the planet is marked with warming and cooling cycles, we should really look long and hard at #2. Agreed. The answer to #1 is unequivocally YES! A quick look at ocean temps, glaciers, icecap thickness, and a number of other measures all point at a warming trend. So far I don't know of a single one that points to a cooling trend. Coincidence? I think not. Now about #2... a firm "don't know for sure." But would it be smarter to play it safe? Throwing another virgin in the volcano never kept it from erupting but it seemed to make the witch doctor and his followers feel like they were doing something. Hmm, that reminds me, somebody do something about all these volcanos, too! Regards Doug King Poor dumb as dog dirt Doug, the only part he got right was; I think not. Sad really sad. K |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:16 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com