What happened to Global Warming?
-
fan_from_texas
Have you taken a formal logic class? It's quite clear that this argument isn't a logical impossibility. I'll give you the proof below (please excuse the lack of logical connectors, as my keyboard doesn't have them).QuakerOats wrote:
It is hard to believe, because we have had similar cyles in the past, pre-industrial revolution. And not only is it hard to believe, it can be soundly rejected by logic, let alone real science.
. . .
Once you explain how we (and the industrial revolution etc.) could be responsible for climate change, even though the earth has continuously gone through these cycles for eons, then perhaps your "opinion" would have merit. However, such a logical argument is an impossibility.
Let GW=existence of global warming.
M=presence of man/machines exuding substantial amounts of GHG.
It seems that you're arguing:
At time X, GW *~M-->~GW(M).
That doesn't necessarily follow. The formal logic would note that your proposition would only be true IFF ~M-->~GW.
That, of course, isn't the case--it's clear that warming cycles occur time to time without the presence of M. But that is the necessary proposition to support your "logic." Unless we're certain that is the case, your "logic" falls apart. Because we anticipate that ~M != ~GW, it doesn't logically follow that the existence at time X of GW without M means that M can have no effect on GW at time Y.
QED. -
derek bomar
just because something has happened before on its own doesn't mean something else can't cause that thing...
take for instance rain...rain is a naturally occurring phenomena in which water from the ground evaporates into the sky and then comes back down on us...following your logic you would think "people" couldn't control when or how much it rains. However, see how the Chinese "make it rain" here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1627968/posts -
jmog
Now I KNOW you don't understand the science behind ANY of this.derek bomar wrote:
I think its gonna be hard to calculate the opportunity cost for this, but that's just my $0.02...I'm not saying throw the brakes on everything and divert all our energy into making everything green right now, but there is no reason we can't right now build high-speed rail and put aside some money to figure out how to make electric or water powered cars that are efficient to produce and use en masse (or other technological advances that reduce emissions while at the same time improving our competitiveness). We're wasting so much money as it is every day on things that are weakening our country and making others stronger. We drive the worlds economy through consumption, so why not have a product that can be locally produced be your main source of consumption? Its hard to put a $ on, but the benefit is out there.
Its physically impossible, as in against the laws of physics, to make an "efficient water powered" car.
Let me make it simple for you.
The laws of physics and chemistry dictate that it costs more energy to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, than the amount of energy you get back when you reburn.
In other words, you actually LOSE energy in water fueled cars. They are a physical impossibility to do without losing energy.
All of the cases you see on the news of some "genious" inventor who has their car run on water, they always neglect to mention the ENORMOUS batteries they have to use to send the electricity through the water to separate it through electrolysis.
Sorry to be the level headed scientist on here, but that was funny..."efficient" water powered cars. I'll give you a hint, all water powered cars have an efficiency below zero, as in negative because they require so much more energy in battery power than they output in the combustion process. -
derek bomar
notice how I said "or" ... "or"... "other"...a bunch of times...jesus dude. Apparently I need to consult with scientists when coming up with "breakthroughs" to see if they actually are theoretically possible first. Gimme a break here, my logic is fine, if you wanna nickpit shit that's fine, but its pretty weak you cant argue logic and instead try to pick out little shit that has nothing to do with the main argumentjmog wrote:
Now I KNOW you don't understand the science behind ANY of this.derek bomar wrote:
I think its gonna be hard to calculate the opportunity cost for this, but that's just my $0.02...I'm not saying throw the brakes on everything and divert all our energy into making everything green right now, but there is no reason we can't right now build high-speed rail and put aside some money to figure out how to make electric or water powered cars that are efficient to produce and use en masse (or other technological advances that reduce emissions while at the same time improving our competitiveness). We're wasting so much money as it is every day on things that are weakening our country and making others stronger. We drive the worlds economy through consumption, so why not have a product that can be locally produced be your main source of consumption? Its hard to put a $ on, but the benefit is out there.
Its physically impossible, as in against the laws of physics, to make an "efficient water powered" car.
Let me make it simple for you.
The laws of physics and chemistry dictate that it costs more energy to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, than the amount of energy you get back when you reburn.
In other words, you actually LOSE energy in water fueled cars. They are a physical impossibility to do without losing energy.
All of the cases you see on the news of some "genious" inventor who has their car run on water, they always neglect to mention the ENORMOUS batteries they have to use to send the electricity through the water to separate it through electrolysis.
Sorry to be the level headed scientist on here, but that was funny..."efficient" water powered cars. I'll give you a hint, all water powered cars have an efficiency below zero, as in negative because they require so much more energy in battery power than they output in the combustion process. -
Al CaponeAl Gore preaches global warming just to keep his fat mug in the news. He tells us what kind of house to live in(when he lives in a mansion) tells us what kind of cars to drive(when he travels around in motorcades). Global warming is nothing but a big hoax with the sole purpose of making money for an attention starving ex politician.
Why dont these ex politicians just go away like John Edwards did? Whoops bad example. -
jmog
Notice how you are now backtracking, you stated we should put back money to make efficient water powered cars...which is an oxymoron.derek bomar wrote:
notice how I said "or" ... "or"... "other"...a bunch of times...jesus dude
Efficient water powered cars are contrary to the laws of physics. Its impossible, but keep acting like you understand all this stuff about AGW, reducing emissions, etc etc.
It would be more energy efficient to completely run a car on batteries, than it would to run it on water. You lose energy in using electricity/batteries to separate the water and reburn it back to water.
Just 1 example of proof you don't understand the science/engineering behind what you are advocating that we should do as a nation. -
derek bomar
are you retarded, or can you not understand my point? Water cars have nothing to do with what I was talking about, it was a hypothetical. Quit nit-picking, you sound like an old womanjmog wrote:
Notice how you are now backtracking, you stated we should put back money to make efficient water powered cars...which is an oxymoron.derek bomar wrote:
notice how I said "or" ... "or"... "other"...a bunch of times...jesus dude
Efficient water powered cars are contrary to the laws of physics. Its impossible, but keep acting like you understand all this stuff about AGW, reducing emissions, etc etc.
It would be more energy efficient to completely run a car on batteries, than it would to run it on water. You lose energy in using electricity/batteries to separate the water and reburn it back to water.
Just 1 example of proof you don't understand the science/engineering behind what you are advocating that we should do as a nation. -
Swamp FoxI don't think it is ever unwise to be a responsible user of the earth's resources. Whether global warning is going to eradicate us as a people in a couple of months or not, is probably a little bit overblown, but I still think it makes good sense to be aware of what we do on a daily basis regarding how we live and to not waste natural resources. Let's face it...Americans are generally gluttons when it comes to creature comforts and we often lack care and concern for others. I've never really been a huge Al Gore fan anyway, regardless of what my personal opinion of the probability of global warning being a real threat in the long term to our earth's longevity may be.
-
jmog
I was about to ask you the same question when you said you think we should put money towards making efficent water powered cars.derek bomar wrote:
are you retarded, or can you not understand my point? Water cars have nothing to do with what I was talking about, it was a hypothetical. Quit nit-picking, you sound like an old woman
If water cars have nothing to do with what you were talking about then WHY even talk about them?
You sound like a liberal who just found out they have no clue and are now "on the attack". You are getting personal while I was sticking to the science behind your position.
Typically the one who goes "personal" has lost the debate already and they just don't know it yet. -
QuakerOats
Yes -- philosophy includes significant reliance on rational argument. Whether the argument contains a logical impossibility or not is probably not the crux of the issue. What is important is for the science community to explain heating cycles pre-industrial era, and compare them with any 'current' cycle without conveniently leaving out, or inserting, various attributes that would make the comparisons fallible, alter the 'science', and render the findings useless (as has been the case from the leftist/anti-capitalists).fan_from_texas wrote:
Have you taken a formal logic class? It's quite clear that this argument isn't a logical impossibility. -
derek bomar
righttttttjmog wrote:
I was about to ask you the same question when you said you think we should put money towards making efficent water powered cars.derek bomar wrote:
are you retarded, or can you not understand my point? Water cars have nothing to do with what I was talking about, it was a hypothetical. Quit nit-picking, you sound like an old woman
If water cars have nothing to do with what you were talking about then WHY even talk about them?
You sound like a liberal who just found out they have no clue and are now "on the attack". You are getting personal while I was sticking to the science behind your position.
Typically the one who goes "personal" has lost the debate already and they just don't know it yet.
you can't understand the point of the argument so you nitpick something that has nothing to do with the main point (jobs, getting off foreign goods, better environment), a hypothetical, and I'm retarded. Dude, address the main issue or move on. As of right now I haven't seen anything from you that makes me think you have any idea what you're talking about. -
Writerbuckeye
The linked article raises the basic question of whether the science behind all this is truly reliable -- and there are enough examples of just shoddy (deliberate or not) work to bring the whole UN report into question. -
fan_from_texas
Does that mean that you're retracting your multiple statements that it is a logical impossibility?QuakerOats wrote:
Yes -- philosophy includes significant reliance on rational argument. Whether the argument contains a logical impossibility or not is probably not the crux of the issue. What is important is for the science community to explain heating cycles pre-industrial era, and compare them with any 'current' cycle without conveniently leaving out, or inserting, various attributes that would make the comparisons fallible, alter the 'science', and render the findings useless (as has been the case from the leftist/anti-capitalists).fan_from_texas wrote:
Have you taken a formal logic class? It's quite clear that this argument isn't a logical impossibility.
There's a world of difference between something being difficult to prove, and being a logical impossibility. -
jmog
I've stated over and over again I'm all for conservation, I'm all for getting off foreign goods, and a better environment.derek bomar wrote:
righttttttjmog wrote:
I was about to ask you the same question when you said you think we should put money towards making efficent water powered cars.derek bomar wrote:
are you retarded, or can you not understand my point? Water cars have nothing to do with what I was talking about, it was a hypothetical. Quit nit-picking, you sound like an old woman
If water cars have nothing to do with what you were talking about then WHY even talk about them?
You sound like a liberal who just found out they have no clue and are now "on the attack". You are getting personal while I was sticking to the science behind your position.
Typically the one who goes "personal" has lost the debate already and they just don't know it yet.
you can't understand the point of the argument so you nitpick something that has nothing to do with the main point (jobs, getting off foreign goods, better environment), a hypothetical, and I'm retarded. Dude, address the main issue or move on. As of right now I haven't seen anything from you that makes me think you have any idea what you're talking about.
The difference is I understand that conservation to get off foreign oil is NOT the same as "we need to lower our carbon footprint". The difference is I understand that a cleaner environment is done by regulating real problem gases like CO, NOx, SOx, CFCs, etc and NOT CO2, which is NOT a poison and does hardly anything to the environment. Matter of fact CO2 is actually one of the weaker greenhouse gases, CH4 and H2O are far "better" greenhouse gases than CO2.
The difference is I'm for real solutions that are viable and possible while at the same time don't kill our economy.
Electric cars aren't a good soluntion UNTIL we move more towards non-oil electrical power like Nuclear, coal, wind, solar, etc. Because in the end an electrical car since it has to be powered by the grid, will have a larger carbon "footprint" (AKA use more foreign oil) than a gasoline powered car.
As we move towards power solutions that aren't based on oil, electric cars become a real foreign oil solution.
The one big problem with electric cars and hybrids is that there are studies out there that say that the polution created in the production of the batteries far outweighs the polution savings while driving it. Especially when you combine it with disposing of the batteries when their life runs out.
I'm all for more oil refineries (jobs), more nuclear power plants (jobs), more drilling on our soil (jobs), more coal mining (jobs), wind farms (jobs), solar panel farms (jobs), etc.
Like I said above, I drive a car that in my opinion is the least emitting car on the road with all things considered (batteries, gasoline, etc) that gets 35+ MPG.
I just scoff at the ideas of GW since I understand the actual science behind CO2 emissions as I've worked in research in that field for many years. -
derek bomar
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/02/16/obama-nuclear-loan.htmljmog wrote:
I've stated over and over again I'm all for conservation, I'm all for getting off foreign goods, and a better environment.derek bomar wrote:
righttttttjmog wrote:
I was about to ask you the same question when you said you think we should put money towards making efficent water powered cars.derek bomar wrote:
are you retarded, or can you not understand my point? Water cars have nothing to do with what I was talking about, it was a hypothetical. Quit nit-picking, you sound like an old woman
If water cars have nothing to do with what you were talking about then WHY even talk about them?
You sound like a liberal who just found out they have no clue and are now "on the attack". You are getting personal while I was sticking to the science behind your position.
Typically the one who goes "personal" has lost the debate already and they just don't know it yet.
you can't understand the point of the argument so you nitpick something that has nothing to do with the main point (jobs, getting off foreign goods, better environment), a hypothetical, and I'm retarded. Dude, address the main issue or move on. As of right now I haven't seen anything from you that makes me think you have any idea what you're talking about.
The difference is I understand that conservation to get off foreign oil is NOT the same as "we need to lower our carbon footprint". The difference is I understand that a cleaner environment is done by regulating real problem gases like CO, NOx, SOx, CFCs, etc and NOT CO2, which is NOT a poison and does hardly anything to the environment. Matter of fact CO2 is actually one of the weaker greenhouse gases, CH4 and H2O are far "better" greenhouse gases than CO2.
The difference is I'm for real solutions that are viable and possible while at the same time don't kill our economy.
Electric cars aren't a good soluntion UNTIL we move more towards non-oil electrical power like Nuclear, coal, wind, solar, etc. Because in the end an electrical car since it has to be powered by the grid, will have a larger carbon "footprint" (AKA use more foreign oil) than a gasoline powered car.
As we move towards power solutions that aren't based on oil, electric cars become a real foreign oil solution.
The one big problem with electric cars and hybrids is that there are studies out there that say that the polution created in the production of the batteries far outweighs the polution savings while driving it. Especially when you combine it with disposing of the batteries when their life runs out.
I'm all for more oil refineries (jobs), more nuclear power plants (jobs), more drilling on our soil (jobs), more coal mining (jobs), wind farms (jobs), solar panel farms (jobs), etc.
Like I said above, I drive a car that in my opinion is the least emitting car on the road with all things considered (batteries, gasoline, etc) that gets 35+ MPG.
I just scoff at the ideas of GW since I understand the actual science behind CO2 emissions as I've worked in research in that field for many years. -
ptown_trojans_1
Yeah, that was 2 power plants. I'm hoping for more in the coming years.
I'm also hoping that the government can stop dragging their feet and fully support the proposed plant in Piketon.
There is also a bigger problem, long term, what to do with the waste? Yucca Mountain is pretty much dead as funding for it is gone, and there is no long term viable solution on the table. Right now waste is stored on site. That is not too much a problem now, but in 10-20 years it will be. -
jmog
I understand these things, trust me. This is one of the few things I agree with Obama on.
Now, if he'd just follow up with even more Nuclear power, domestic oil drilling, and *gasp* coal mining/power ALONG WITH the ideas of more green technologies like wind/solar/biofuels then we'd actually have a energy policy that is looking to the future.
And, coal and not the environmental lobbyist "clean coal" is definitely a way to get the US off foreign oil.
I'm all for the "clean coal" we do now where all coal power plants have to scrub all sulfur emissions out of their power generators (SOx that I mentioned above). THis actually creates more local businesses as the bi-product of this scrubbing is gypsum. Near every coal fired power plant you'll find dry wall plants taking their emission scrubbed gypsum to make drywall.
What I'm not talking about is the idea of carbon sequestering coal fired power plants. Do that and you shut them down due to the cost of doing it for minimal gain on the environment/emissions.
Edit: Side story about how the environmentalists have been killing one of the greatest biofuel ideas in the history of man. Yes, that's right, the EPA is killing a biofuel.
There is a technology out there that can turn ANY organic trash (food, plastics, wood, anything that is mostly carbons, hydrogens, and oxygens) and convert it into a liquid fuel similar to ethanol. Basically taking a great portion of our trash and converting it into liquid fuels. The process to do so involves superheating the trash with a specific catalyst to break it down. The EPA sees "trash" and "heating" in the same idea and believes its a trash incinerator and kills the idea because of the bad emissions from a trash incinerator.
However, while there is combustion involved, its indirect to the trash. There are some burners (typically natural gas, but can be liquid fuels) used to heat up the process, but the trash itself is never burned. Currently the company who came up with this process can not use the process for their intended use (what I described above) since the EPA makes it cost prohibitive due to their lack of knowledge on the process at hand. The company currently uses the process to turn wood into a liquid. This liquid is then used as a spray on a lot of our foods to add the "smoked" taste to it (read lunch meats like smoked turkey, smoked ham, etc).
Burger King also buys a spray from this company to "spray" on their grill lines on their hamburgers...sorry folks, hate to tell you but BK's burgers don't get their grill marks from a grill.
This is another unfortunate case where a technology exists to help our country in two ways, in landfill mitigation and in foreign oil consumption, but the EPA/environmental activists basically won't let it happen. -
fan_from_texasWe'll see if the Vogel plants can get through permitting. Securing the DOE loan guarantee is a step in the right direction, but it's not entirely clear that the state PSC is going to be on board with this.
-
QuakerOatshttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804204575069440096420212.html
support for the hoax continues to crumble .......... -
believer
Al Gore has resurfaced....damn it: Reared His Ugly Head
"Attacks on the science of global warming"? More like the revelation of the hoax and myth of man-made global warming there Al Boy.It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.
LMAO -
Writerbuckeye
Al is seeing all that money he could be making from cap & trade going down the toilet -- where the "science" behind this belongs.
-
irish_buffaloI've never seen so many heads in sand.
-
ou1980
You mean "snow" instead of "sand", right irish??irish_buffalo wrote: I've never seen so many heads in sand.
Lots and lots of deep cold snow!!! LOL -
Writerbuckeye
My head is just fine, thank you.irish_buffalo wrote: I've never seen so many heads in sand.
Before we spend trillions of dollars on this, I'd like to know why the Medieval Warming Period was as warm or warmer than anything we've had so far? Certainly, man didn't create the problem back then.
So when science can explain to me why man is causing all this warming (warming that hasn't actually happened in about 15 years by the way) NOW but didn't cause it then...I guess I'll start to come around.
Until then, I'd rather have my head in the sand than up my ass like most warm-mongers.