|
Post by DrShot on Dec 29, 2007 1:55:07 GMT -5
Time and time again I have sited a wide array of sourced material from different groups and agencies to counter most any reasonable claim in favor of GW. I do not expect all material I present to be an absolute. I find the only absolute to be many peoples unwillingness to even consider there is another or conflicting opinion. It is "very likely" that no amount of data offered will be enough for some to even consider conflicting data. I spent over an hour reading the Report from the IPCC site, i did not use the link although likely the same. There were a lot of 'definite maybes' and other ambiguities use for terminology; as are common when speaking of uncertain subjects. Sorry for rambling on, Im off my meds. Off to the fridge I go
|
|
|
Post by TheBadSeed on Dec 29, 2007 19:17:50 GMT -5
Time and time again I have sited a wide array of sourced material from different groups and agencies to counter most any reasonable claim in favor of GW. I do not expect all material I present to be an absolute. Actually, I just went back through a few of your posts, Shot, you havent used "a wide array of sourced material" and you haven't been the least bit open minded. You pretty much looked at a very small, limited statement from NASA and made conjectures about its relevance. Here's a quote from another thread. [glow=red,2,300]DrShot: "If our entire solar system, a large portion of it at any rate is in a warming trend then it really blasts a hole in the 'Global Warming' nonsense the alarmists are spewing. Solar radiation is the cause. Imagine that, the Sun!"[/glow] In that statement, you are pretty definitive that there's only one cause for global warming. Meanwhile, the group of 250 professional scientists from 130 different countries who've spent more than a decade studying this with NASA's assistance have obviously overlooked that. Good job, Shot, you saved the world from ignorance. Why arent you in that group? I wholeheartedly agree. I think all theories should be studied, as nearly any theory on nature is nearly impossibly to prove. There are a whole lot of theories that can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Evolution, gravity, relativity, etc. These are all still theories, but the study of these theories have led to countless discoveries. However, when you have a solid theory that shows consequences for non-action, you should take action. Several years ago, the hole in the ozone layer was big news. Chlorofloracarbons, or CFC's were theorized to be the cause of the growing hole. CFC's were banned, and within a few short years, the hole began to shrink. A theory was spotted, acted upon, and the desired consequence of action was achieved. Its interesting that you're willing to throw lots of weight behind political theories, such as the continued existence of WMD's in Iraq, (a theory that was studied, and found no evidence by the studying body) and support the actions to fix that, but not willing to support the measures to take action on an environmental theory that has significant evidence. In scientific endeavors, you cannot use language of absolutes. There always has to be room for undiscovered evidence. The words "likely" or "very likely" have to be used, because its not a proven theory. It's scientifically irresponsible to not acknowledge that there may indeed be other explanations to anything and everything.I think he's starting to falter, TGS, better give him the assist. "We all gotta duck when the shlt hits the fan"-- The Circle Jerks 1983
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Dec 30, 2007 3:14:10 GMT -5
Time and time again I have sited a wide array of sourced material from different groups and agencies to counter most any reasonable claim in favor of GW. I do not expect all material I present to be an absolute. Actually, I just went back through a few of your posts, Shot, you havent used "a wide array of sourced material" and you haven't been the least bit open minded. You pretty much looked at a very small, limited statement from NASA and made conjectures about its relevance. Here's a quote from another thread. Perhaps you missed the post I was commenting on. It was in the obvious location for a Global Warming post... in the Electoral Col. thread anyway here is the link, it is about 3 weeks old, I only posted about 1/2 the info I had located that night, I figured noone would read it ( perhaps I was right).
[ftp]http://civ4players.proboards44.com/index.cgi?action=userrecentposts&user=drshot[/ftp]
[glow=red,2,300]DrShot: "If our entire solar system, a large portion of it at any rate is in a warming trend then it really blasts a hole in the 'Global Warming' nonsense the alarmists are spewing. Solar radiation is the cause. Imagine that, the Sun!"[/glow] In that statement, you are pretty definitive that there's only one cause for global warming. Meanwhile, the group of 250 professional scientists from 130 different countries who've spent more than a decade studying this with NASA's assistance have obviously overlooked that. Good job, Shot, you saved the world from ignorance. Why arent you in that group? Largely yes. Through out time (that includes now) the MAJOR factor in global warming is Solar Radiation: Fact. ( thats what we call a proxy , clever , eh?) I wholeheartedly agree. I think all theories should be studied, as nearly any theory on nature is nearly impossibly to prove. There are a whole lot of theories that can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Evolution, gravity, relativity, etc. These are all still theories, but the study of these theories have led to countless discoveries. As someone that does a lot of time behind and in front of a bar(like myself through the years) I woould hope you know a lot about gravity ;D Einsteins theories about relativity and astro- physics are still being looked at in a positive way. Not bad for someone that could ONLY theorize about many things. If you hurry there is an excellent show on History or Disco chnl.(i believe they called them ->) Huge Black Holes and how they 'created' galaxies contrary to what was thought not to long ago.Its interesting that you're willing to throw lots of weight behind political theories, er, straight from the horses mouth rofl such as the continued existence of WMD's in Iraq, (a theory that was studied, and found no evidence by the studying body) I do not believe I have said that there ARE WMD's in Iraq. I have said I do not doubt there are. I have said they could have and likely readily hidden; 'very likely' for transport out of the country later ( the pass word is Syria). The is PROOF POSITIVE that saddam had and used WMD's. I hope we need not cover this again and support the actions to fix that, but not willing to support the measures to take action on an environmental theory that has significant evidence. There is significant evidence pointing to at least a second gunman, yet no one talks about that much... Oh, Chappaquidthingy is a fun place to toss about 'fact and fiction'In scientific endeavors, you cannot use language of absolutes. There always has to be room for undiscovered evidence. The words "likely" or "very likely" have to be used, because its not a proven theory. It's scientifically irresponsible to not acknowledge that there may indeed be other explanations to anything and everything.'proven theory' the transition goes theory to fact... not proven theory, sheesh. I think he's starting to falter, TGS, better give him the assist. "We all gotta duck when the shlt hits the fan"-- The Circle Jerks 1983 Well, the smart one knows well enough to stand behind the fan. Global Warming does not bother me. These Ping Pong matches in this forum are acceptable as well. The Alarmism and proliferation of theory ( there really are multiple theories for and agains and some that combine many of other theories good and bad from any viewpoint) about GW is what I find bothersome. The Politicalization and personal usage of GW I often find condemnable; unacceptable. This one is for you tgs-> ATTILA THE HUN: Wait! don't shoot fire stick in space kanoe! cause explosive decompression! ZAP: Spare me your space-age techno-babble Attila the Hun ...and this one is at you "That's the problem with Neutrals - you never know where you stand. Damn them and their neutrality." Yes, good ole Zap Brannigan
|
|
|
Post by TheBadSeed on Dec 30, 2007 16:44:53 GMT -5
I accept that there are many other theories. However, there has been no group in history that has spent even one percent as much time or expert research as has the IPCC, so I'm going to put a lot more weight behind their findings than I am behind whatever radio-host, columnist, or cable channel founder is out there trying to convince the world he/she knows more than the people who are really doing the research. I agree, and dont forget the commercialization. How many "green" Christmas ads did you see this year? Lame! Marketers trying to convince you that you can buy your way to a healthy planet. NBC having "green" week.. all this stupid crap. Do something meaningful. http://http://www.celsias.com/2007/11/23/nanosolars-breakthrough-technology-solar-now-cheaper-than-coal/Tell public officials to do the right thing. Stop taking bribes from the pollution lobby, use the technology thats out there to create something better. Coal burning is a major contributor to pollution, its not necessary anymore. Wanna see the cost of energy plummet? Establish incentives for the clean energy industry to take off. The nano-solar technology can produce enrgy for 30% of the cost of coal, which was, until now, the cheapest way to mass produce energy. I love this solution, so much better than a hybrid vehicle that only puts a bandaid on the problem, while costing between 5-10k more per car. This solution is cheaper, cleaner, and will have continued use 50 years from now. Hybrids will go to the wayside as soon as hydrogen powered vehicles begin to emerge. All of this stuff, the sooner the better. Get us off the oil standard, stop making our enemies rich by buying their sludge. Want peace in the middle east? Cut off their money supply. Middle eastern countries right now are the equivilent of Spain in the 16th and 17th centuries. Spain was rich on gold from the new world, and bent on spreading its religion and culture around the world through any meands necessary, just as the M.E. Countries are rich from selling black gold, and trying to do the same. Spain put all its wealth into short-sighted military options, and faded into insignificance as soon as they could no longer afford their military. The M.E. countries are doing the same. Trying to spread their religion and culture by means of weapons. Want it to stop? STOP BUYING THEIR FREAKIN' OIL! When they no longer have the funding to keep doing this, they will also fade into insignificance. Instead of spending trillions of dollars to fight wars there, we'll be sending humanitarian assistance, and sending their kids aid through the Christian Childrens Fund. Maybe Angelina Jolie will adopt a poor Saudi child in 5 years, if we get off the damn oil standard! Ok, I rambled heavily on that one.
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Dec 30, 2007 19:33:06 GMT -5
Hi TBS. Here I am again to Analise what you are saying line by line as is my MO. I guess what I'm doing is challenging the points you make. The quality of the challenge my very, but my goal is to get you to back up what you've said. Most people that write huge post tend to cover so many different issues in the post, I can't let the points they make go unchallenged. I don't always go line by line. Just when there are lots of points being made. billions and billions of theories..... the truth is out there..... man how about NASA. They spend $3000 dollars on a hammer. Even if NASA said GW was gunna kill us all, I can't help but conclude by judging the earths past climate, that earth, without major events, will hold some 15 degrees Celsius warmer. And when the earth does get cold, It warms right back up. do you wanna ban them somehow? I agree totally. I think there is something more behind the "green" trend then what meets the eye. Gotta go gas up my black helicopter. http://http://www. celsias.com/2007/11/23/nanosolars-breakthrough-technology-solar-now-cheaper-than-coal/ pollution has a lobby? Wow, movin on up eh. I bet the SUV lobby is pissed. TOTALLY!!! America would be decades ahead of where we are today had we implemented nuke power on a large scale. Imagine, no need to heat your house with wood, oil, or gas. Plug n charge electric cars woulda came out 30 years ago. Mag-lift trains would replace commuter flights. But no, can't have that. Rather burn millions of tons of coal. BS WORD. Coal is lame. See TBS, this is one of those statements you gotta look at real good. Your right, I am slow and can only take 1 thought at a time. First you say...."Wanna see the cost of energy plummet?" This implies its a no brainer. However TBS, there are people that think energy should cost more. Al Gore wanted 5 dollar a gallon gas in his book for example. There are many others and they are all on the left. Conservatives always want low energy cost because this makes life for everyone better. So, to a Conservative like me, it is a no brainer. YES! Imagine all the money, and pollution that coulda been saved by nuke power. Then you say..."Establish incentives for the clean energy industry to take off." So I guess incentives are free? Oh wait, we'll just make up some new tax. Add it to the 5,354,357 pages of tax law. Why don't we just build nuke plants? Great. So whats stopping some guy from making a power plant out of those things? Oh wait, solar only works 1/2 of the day. Sometimes it rains or gets cloudy. This guy should try his luck with nuke power. Hi-breads are cool. On earth, where I'm from, it is far more practical to have a car that runs on gasoline then on nano-solar technology. This will change with time, but there isn't some "it" car they can make to fix everything. As energy gets cheaper, people will start plugging there cars in the wall. ITS 2007 AND I CAN"T AFFORD TO RUN A DAM LITTLE ELECTRIC HEATER!!! Theres noway I could run my car. Go invent it then TBS! Whats stopping you or someone from inventing "The Nano-Solar Car". Is it the MAN.... man This tech will be cool but I still don't understand why we don't have nuke plants and power for pennys. And WTF, and wheres my flying car! I agree, If we had nuke power, we'de have very little demand for oil. We use oil for everything from power plants, to home heating. All could of been replaced 30 years ago. How did all that turn out for spain? yup "bent on spreading its religion and culture around the world through any meands necessary" I think they lost some battles in there. A hurricane hurt um too I think. And America's modern gunboats toasted there navy in that 1900 war. But the Iraq war was just to get oil for haliburton, black-water, and no-bid contracts right? Like that wont piss um off. but not before using the military they spent all that money on Enable dictators, that live on lakes of oil, to keep there people in 400 AD, I think not. If you really cared about those people, you'de help them modernize there civilizations. This my require a few dictators to go. LOL, be like, kid, your people live on the largest oil reserve on earth. Your government takes every penny for palaces n crap so your stuck getting adopted by Angelina Jolie. Ask her for a cage near a window
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Dec 30, 2007 19:41:14 GMT -5
I love this solution, so much better than a hybrid vehicle that only puts a bandaid on the problem, while costing between 5-10k more per car. This solution is cheaper, cleaner, and will have continued use 50 years from now. Hybrids will go to the wayside as soon as hydrogen powered vehicles begin to emerge. Hydrogen powered vehicles will never be practical. I'd be interested to hear where you think the hydrogen will come from.
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Dec 30, 2007 19:43:50 GMT -5
I love this solution, so much better than a hybrid vehicle that only puts a bandaid on the problem, while costing between 5-10k more per car. This solution is cheaper, cleaner, and will have continued use 50 years from now. Hybrids will go to the wayside as soon as hydrogen powered vehicles begin to emerge. Hydrogen powered vehicles will never be practical. I'd be interested to hear where you think the hydrogen will come from. Mr.Whip, If we had nuke power, makin hydrogen would be a easy
|
|
|
Post by TheBadSeed on Dec 30, 2007 20:14:04 GMT -5
Hydrogen powered vehicles will never be practical. I'd be interested to hear where you think the hydrogen will come from. Water is relatively easily split apart into its elements by a process called electrolysis. Hydrogen and oxygen are the bi-products of splitting apart the water molecule, both of which can be captured seperately. The process of hydrogen reconnecting with oxygen to create water again creates a small discharge of energy, which is what creates the energy for an engine to run. The discharge from the fuel process is water. If the electricity used for the electrolysis is produced using renewable energy or nuclear power, the production of the hydrogen would (in principle) result in no net carbon dioxide emissions. GM currently has fuel cell vehicle in experimental production, called the "sequel". Many, many cities, including my own, have fleets of vehicles that run off fuel cells that are in use daily, putting practical experience to the fuel cell engine. Its *very* close, Whip.
|
|
|
Post by TheBadSeed on Dec 30, 2007 20:47:40 GMT -5
Im fully with you, TGS, I think Nuclear energy is a brilliant source of power, and should be used much more than it is. The drawbacks to nuclear power are the inherent dangers of meltdown, and transport and storage of waste. Living in Nevada, site of the Yucca mountain nuclear waste repository, I'm very familiar with the argument against having trains filled with nuclear waste running through cities and towns. Worst case scenarios of having a train wreck and dump nuclear waste pellets through the middle of downtown Reno are pretty scary. Even once you get it to its final destination, you have to determine that its holding facility is stable enough to survive the half-life of depleted uranium, which is some ungodly high number of years.
That being said, nuclear power is still thousands of times preferable to coal, in my opinion.
I think you're misunderstanding the process, TGS. You see, most large scale industries (auto, power, oil, phone, cable, internet, etc) all had economic incentives from the government to get off the ground. Most of them still receive benefits. The oil industry gets a whole slew of tax-breaks still, which we pay for as consumers at the pump. Unfortunately, the incentives offered to alternative energy are miniscule compared to what the oil and coal industries are still recieving. In Nevada, we had a 3 year period where the state would pay $5 per kilowatt hour of energy that you added to the grid by fitting your home with solar or wind power. The average house could, at that time, add about 4,000 kilowatt hours of power to the grid with the solar technology available, so if you could prove it, the state would pay you $20,000 to do it. Unfortunately, at the time, the private sector did not have the technology to fit a house for less than 50-60k, so it wasnt a viable economic solution, as it would take 15-20 years for the benefit to catch up with what you payed for the installation. Now that the technology has caught up to where its less expensive, the benefit from the state has expired.
The benefits of having power production decentralized are amazing. Energy traveling across wires travels much more efficiently when its travelling both ways, rather than just one. Do you remember the blackout a few years back that left states from New York to Illinois without power for several days because of a couple malfunctions in the grid? That really woke me up as to how fragile our system is because of centralization of power production. I saw a scenario that showed nearly the entire west coast going black from destruction of a few unguarded power relays. Its scary. By having many, many small producers, i.e., nano-solar power panels on houses, sharing power in a smaller area, this could never happen on such a large scale.
Anyway, just more ramblings.
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Dec 30, 2007 20:49:57 GMT -5
This is an older article ( about 2-3 min to read ) but 95% of the points made are valid to date.
The Blind Men Visit The Elephant
[ftp]www.gcrg.org/bqr/17-2/blind.html [/ftp]
Basically to create hydrogen fuel cells requires energy. The cell has merely been removed from the location of the pollution and energy consumption required making it seem 'clean'. I believe that Nuclear power does offer the best hope thus far for creating energy cells, thats all they are. The must be powered up and transported and often stored. This process also requires consumption of energy.
I would like to see how cost effictive the City of Sparks project is on their program... your idea , you look it up, if whiplash does not agree tgs will surmount another conflicting diatribe for us ;D
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Dec 30, 2007 21:07:06 GMT -5
Quote: than I am behind whatever radio-host, columnist, or cable channel founder is out there trying to convince the world he/she knows more than the people who are really doing the research. -tbs do you wanna ban them somehow? -tgs ____________ interesting how you put your ipcc panel upon a lofty pedestal and only merit the rest of us as having information sourced solely from " radio-host, columnist, or cable channel founder". Perhaps just an oversight on your part ( every time). Have you reviewed any of the prior 3 reports from the IPCC on this topic, this is the 4th to date Satan, glad to see there are a few constitutionalists and perhaps Federalists out there still. I hear they are making a spinoff of Reno 911 -- Sparks 911 , it's about the Fire Dept though Perhaps you , tbs,could be RENO 411 ie: information lol
|
|
|
Post by TheBadSeed on Dec 30, 2007 21:12:36 GMT -5
No, Shot, hydrogen is not free power, never made the assertion that it was. It costs energy to create the hydrogen, as hydrogen is a carrier of energy, not a source. It is efficient power. According to Toyota in 2005, their hybrid "prius" runs at 40% energy efficiency. That is, 40% of the energy that is burned from the gasoline is used, and not wasted. That doesnt sound like much until you compare it to the 20% that most internal combustion engines run at, and the fact that nearly 90% of all energy created is wasted. The current generation of fuel cell engines out there run at right around 75% efficiency. Is it economically feasible? Not yet. It takes mass production to make something affordable.
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Dec 30, 2007 22:44:45 GMT -5
Why can't they just make the plant way out yonder, and keep the waist next to the plant? word up TBS. The goverments job isn't to micromanage socioty with tax incentives. Being able to tax different things at different rates is BS. We need some kinda flat/fair tax system bad. While having a solar network n all that sounds really cool, and it is, we still need something to generate the big watts for the big, modern stuff we got. Little solar panals may help, but they won't replace power plants. Na, Levi and Marr could learn a lot from you. You should teach a class. Liberalism 101 w/ prof TBS
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Dec 31, 2007 1:32:54 GMT -5
No, Shot, hydrogen is not free power, never made the assertion that it was. It costs energy to create the hydrogen, as hydrogen is a carrier of energy, not a source. It is efficient power. According to Toyota in 2005, their hybrid "prius" runs at 40% energy efficiency. That is, 40% of the energy that is burned from the gasoline is used, and not wasted. That doesnt sound like much until you compare it to the 20% that most internal combustion engines run at, and the fact that nearly 90% of all energy created is wasted. The current generation of fuel cell engines out there run at right around 75% efficiency. Is it economically feasible? Not yet. It takes mass production to make something affordable. Lets keep yer asss outa this for now. The numbers you show here are related to the powerplant(motor). What I was talking about was the energy used to create the hydrogen to start with. That alone is not energy (likely cost as well) efficient.
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Dec 31, 2007 1:39:48 GMT -5
Train wreck in Reno might be just cause to level Down Town and rebuild to get it out of the 1930's slum (nevada)appeal it has atm. Seriously there has not been a major nuke accident since 3 mile in the US that Im aware of... Why can't they just make the plant way out yonder, and keep the waist next to the plant?Then where would we put Area 51 ffs
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Dec 31, 2007 9:49:31 GMT -5
Three Mile Island was not even a major nuke accident.
NOBODY GOT HURT.
A problem developed that the well-trained technical staff was able to handle. The plant had adequate system redundancy to prevent all but a tiny radiation release.
Chyrnoble was a different story. The Russians simply did not invest in safety in the design of that sucker.
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on Dec 31, 2007 12:00:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Dec 31, 2007 13:55:20 GMT -5
Three Mile Island was not even a major nuke accident. NOBODY GOT HURT. A problem developed that the well-trained technical staff was able to handle. The plant had adequate system redundancy to prevent all but a tiny radiation release. Chyrnoble was a different story. The Russians simply did not invest in safety in the design of that sucker. Mr.Whip. I think its a bit deeper then that. For the same reason cars built by commies suck, the nuke plants built by commies suck. The more complex something is, the harder it is to build/run it with government/forced labor. America's nuke plants are built/run by private companies that pay people on career paths. So when such dangerous things are put into the hands of the public they could harm, the public takes a lot more safety precautions. If you only care about output, and the safety of the people near by don't concern you, well BOOOOM
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Dec 31, 2007 14:01:52 GMT -5
LOL, I've seen those. You plug them into the wall and they suck like 30 bucks worth of juice a day. Z, The problem is that it is cheaper to run a car off gas. If we had invested in nuke power long ago, those cars woulda been here 30 years ago. But because of the KGB and gullible liberals, we givin up nuke power for the dumbest reasons. We rather burn billions of tons of coal then deal with a little nuke waist that we could shove in a deep pit way out in the middle of nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by TheBadSeed on Dec 31, 2007 14:32:21 GMT -5
LOL, I've seen those. You plug them into the wall and they suck like 30 bucks worth of juice a day. Z, The problem is that it is cheaper to run a car off gas. If we had invested in nuke power long ago, those cars woulda been here 30 years ago. But because of the KGB and gullible liberals, we givin up nuke power for the dumbest reasons. We rather burn billions of tons of coal then deal with a little nuke waist that we could shove in a deep pit way out in the middle of nowhere. So, you didnt read the article, did you.
|
|