Page 62 of 111 FirstFirst ... 1252575859606162636465666772 ... LastLast
Results 1,221 to 1,240 of 2209
  1. #1221  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    whmurray.....times like this I wish I had $100 billion dollars as this would have caught my attention enough to learn more about the realistic potential it has to offer with what funding for research.
    Hell, it would be nice to have $100 billion at any time. While some of those who have it inherited some, most of those who have it, got it on just such a risk as this.

    [Imagine what Bill Gate's parents said when he announced that he was going to drop out of Harvard, a chance that most of us would give a gauche part of our anatomy for.]
  2. #1222  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    ........No, I have to be honest...I haven't read that article yet.
    Well, I have now read it and have some sense of the advantages and limitations of the process.

    Currently it is not competitive with gasoline at only $3- a gallon. Of course, gasoline is much more than $3- a gallon in most of the world. This is where the government comes in. The government could tax gasoline to the point that hydrogen is competitive.

    The process requires aluminum. Aluminum does not occur free in nature but is recovered from bauxite using, you guessed it, electricity. A by-product of the process is aluminum oxide. The aluminum can be re-claimed/re-processed from the oxide by, you got it again, electrolysis, another energy intensive process. Of course, hydrogen can be obtained from water directly with electrolysis without using aluminum.

    So, in one way, this is just one more scheme for storing energy by separating hydrogen from oxygen. The advantage of this scheme is that the hydrogen can be separated from the oxygen at the point of use rather than doing it near the electricity and then transporting it.

    The article suggests that fuel cells coupled to electric motors might be about half again more efficient in the converison of hydrogen into mechanical energy than internal combustion engines. We have few cars with fuel cells but lots with internal combustion engines.

    While this process does not require that the hydrogen be transported to the point of use, the aluminum must be. Like most things in this space, the economics are not simple. This is where DOE and energy policy come in.

    The net is that we are left about where we started. We have one more clean(er) alternative to gasoline that cannot compete with it at the artificially low price at which it sells. The easiest way to fix this is to tax it so that its price reflects the damage done by CO2 emissions and the fact that it is a finite resource. We call this "energy policy." It requires political courage, a commodity much scarcer than hydrogen.

    Incidentally, as I read the report, I concluded that the DOE officials are not so much arrogant as they are merely stupid. "One should not attribute to arrogance what can as easily be explained by stupidity."
    Last edited by whmurray; 05/18/2007 at 08:03 PM.
  3. #1223  
    I was actually reading an article about cell phones in this NZ paper and stumbled across this:

    Meteorologist: In 5 years, climate change will be joke Man's carbon dioxide contribution only 0.12% of greenhouse gases
    Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.

    "If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time."

    The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

    However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html
    Without simply just dismissing it, I wonder what report he was drawing from?
  4. #1224  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I was actually reading an article about cell phones in this NZ paper and stumbled across this:

    Meteorologist: In 5 years, climate change will be joke Man's carbon dioxide contribution only 0.12% of greenhouse gases
    Without simply just dismissing it, I wonder what report he was drawing from?
    Totally useless information. Of course the water vapour and other natural factors are responsible for most of the greenhouse effect. They cause an increase of the average temperature from 18 deg. C below freezing to 15 deg. C above freezing (33 deg. C difference). What matters is that man-made emission cause an even further increase of the temperature by adding more greehouse gases to the atmosphere. You can read more about it here: http://www.te-software.co.nz/blog/augie_auer.htm

    "...meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton..." HobbesIsReal, why do you even care what some metorologist told some totally irrelevant Farmers Federation? I suggest you chose your sources more wisely. Try to weigh the source according to its importance. You can always find a lone, dissenting voice saying some nonsense somewhere.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  5. #1225  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    HobbesIsReal, why do you even care what some metorologist told some totally irrelevant Farmers Federation? I suggest you chose your sources more wisely. Try to weigh the source according to its importance. You can always find a lone, dissenting voice saying some nonsense somewhere.
    As I stated, I only posted it mostly because I more curious if there is any other opinions, sources, etc... on the research / data they this person must be drawing from. With no mention of the source, I wanted see it directly for myself (or others commenting on the same source) instead of a single person's interpretation of it.
  6. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #1226  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    "...meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton..." HobbesIsReal, why do you even care what some metorologist told some totally irrelevant Farmers Federation? I suggest you chose your sources more wisely. Try to weigh the source according to its importance. You can always find a lone, dissenting voice saying some nonsense somewhere.
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    As I stated, I only posted it mostly because I more curious if there is any other opinions, sources, etc... on the research / data they this person must be drawing from. With no mention of the source, I wanted see it directly for myself (or others commenting on the same source) instead of a single person's interpretation of it.
    In other words, the usual (im)plausible denial, Clulup.
  7. #1227  
    Interesting story. It turns out the Smithsonian has been playing politics with global warming, supressing information over the objections of scientists, so as not to anger Bush administration and conservatives in Congress.

    http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...tion-headlines
  8. #1228  
    Nobel winner hopes for 'sense of urgency' on global warming

    NEW DELHI (AFP) — The Nobel peace prize should add a "sense of urgency" to the fight against global warming, Rajendra Pachauri, head of the globe's top scientific body on climate change that shared the award, said on Friday.

    "I expect this will bring the subject to the fore and will hopefully create greater awareness and a sense of urgency," said Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    "The message should go out to everyone -- developed and developing countries -- we are all in this together. We have to make sure that climate change does not afflict the inhabitants of this planet," he told a cheering crowd of some 200 co-workers and well-wishers outside his office in New Delhi.

    "Climate change threatens to disrupt stable economic activities all over the world and it also threatens to disrupt social stability," the IPCC chief said.

    The Nobel Peace Prize was jointly awarded Friday in Oslo to former US vice president Al Gore and the IPCC, the Norwegian Nobel committee said.

    http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...IF8Bc-5O7ukHSw
  9. #1229  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Nobel winner hopes for 'sense of urgency' on global warming

    NEW DELHI (AFP) — The Nobel peace prize should add a "sense of urgency" to the fight against global warming, Rajendra Pachauri, head of the globe's top scientific body on climate change that shared the award, said on Friday.

    "I expect this will bring the subject to the fore and will hopefully create greater awareness and a sense of urgency," said Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    "The message should go out to everyone -- developed and developing countries -- we are all in this together. We have to make sure that climate change does not afflict the inhabitants of this planet," he told a cheering crowd of some 200 co-workers and well-wishers outside his office in New Delhi.

    "Climate change threatens to disrupt stable economic activities all over the world and it also threatens to disrupt social stability," the IPCC chief said.

    The Nobel Peace Prize was jointly awarded Friday in Oslo to former US vice president Al Gore and the IPCC, the Norwegian Nobel committee said.

    http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...IF8Bc-5O7ukHSw
    It's amazing that such a patently false idea (humans causing the recent global warming) gets so much attention. My opinion of the Nobel Prize has dropped to zero, as scientific fact is at odds with Al's movie.

    Repeating the lie enough times, and it becomes the truth.

    Oh well.
  10. #1230  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    It's amazing that such a patently false idea (humans causing the recent global warming) gets so much attention. My opinion of the Nobel Prize has dropped to zero, as scientific fact is at odds with Al's movie.

    Repeating the lie enough times, and it becomes the truth.

    Oh well.
    OK mikec. You're starting to repeat yourself. You think global warming is a hoax and all of those crazy scientist - you know the ones that think the world is round - are patently crazy.

    Keep repeating it and it may become truth. One little problem...what if it doesn't and their right?

    I think the movie did what he intended - got people talking about global warming. You may disagree with the content. Some of it may be inaccurate. But he did and still does have people talking about it and that is why he got the Noble Peace Prize. He raised awareness of an issue that merits serious consideration, if nothing else.
  11. #1231  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    It's amazing that such a patently false idea (humans causing the recent global warming) gets so much attention. My opinion of the Nobel Prize has dropped to zero, as scientific fact is at odds with Al's movie.

    Repeating the lie enough times, and it becomes the truth.

    Oh well.
    Yes clearly you would know better than the people who pick the Nobel winner. Because they rely on input from people who are actually qualified to make the decision.

    Don't believe the propaganda telling you that there is any real debate about the validity of humans adding significantly to global warning. The people spewing this garbage took a page right out of the "creationist science" play book in order to get people to believe there is actually scientific disagreement on an issue where there isnt any.
    iPhone in the Washington DC area.
  12. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1232  
    My take:

    1. Whether or not we are in one of those Earthly periods of extended global warming has not sufficiently been demonstrated as the data is flawed. More on that below.

    Example: As an MIT scientist recently said, here have been forecasts issued as far off as the year 2040. This uses the same unreliable models, as your local 10 day weather forecast.

    2. The Earth has always been heating up or cooling. Periods of temperature stability are rare.

    3. It up until the early 1980s, scientists were saying that the Earth is in store for another Ice Age.

    4. Human contribution to global warming has not sufficiently or persuasively been evidenced.

    5. There is no scientific evidence that claims the planet, and the humans on it, face a global disaster because of global warming.

    6. Sea levels have been rising since the last Ice Age.

    7. Data and scientific observations of centuries past have issues simply because of what scientists had to work with. Today's scientific work is vastly superior to that of days past, but in order to have a sound relationship between what is happening in over a very long period of time, you would need accurate data then as you do from today.

    For example: observation of past volcano occurences and their relationship to the weather.

    Certainly, we can extrapolate some data from the Earth's past using the instruments of today - but there are limitations here.

    8. There is no evidence that there are long term increased weather events in the tropics - such as hurricanes. In fact, warmer weather decreases weather volatility.

    9. Some scientists are actually surprised why the Earth is not warmer than it actually is.

    10. In the last century, warming has taken place between 1919 to 1940, then from 1976 to 1998. In between those periods, there was has cooling. Science has absolutely no clue as to why.

    I can go on, but the point has been made.

    So, in light of what we do know, and what we don't know - my position is this:

    1. I neither affirm nor deny there is abnormal global warming.
    2. Global warming may or may not be a good thing.
    3. There are other much more pressing issues on the enviromental front.
    4. I have not seen any evidence that global warming is affected in any meaningful way by human activity.
    5. Global warming, irregardless if we had something to do with it or not, is wholly out of our control - and no endless succession of Kyoto treaties will change that.
    6. In an effort to cover all the bases, those who believe in global warming are now using the words "climate change". I am sorry, the climate changes in my neck of the woods daily, if not hourly.

    and lastly....

    7. I think Algore and company have done everyone a great disservice with his alarmist rhetoric bordering on hysteria.

    So there
  13. #1233  
    scientific evidence trumps rhetoric
  14. #1234  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    scientific evidence trumps rhetoric
    gojeda was only regurgitating past posts. He holds no positions as that would require clarity and integrity.
  15. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1235  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    scientific evidence trumps rhetoric
    Indeed it does....but only if there is scientific evidence to begin with.

    Marketing climate change, like some have, is a poor substitute for the facts.
  16. #1236  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Indeed it does....but only if there is scientific evidence to begin with.

    Marketing climate change, like some have, is a poor substitute for the facts.
    what kind of insinuating bs is that? you are dancing around and trying to imply something which you simply cannot refute openly.

    everyone knows global warming exists and everyone also clearly sees the extremely likely associations between humans and global warming.

    This is the consensus of a mountain of evidence by the scientific community, this is not marketing.

    And no twisting or spinning can make that go away gojeda.
  17. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1237  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    what kind of insinuating bs is that?
    Funny, I did not see any ambiguity there.

    you are dancing around and trying to imply something which you simply cannot refute openly.
    So you are saying I cannot provide evidence that flies in the face of global warming, and the supposed contributions of humans to that global warming?

    everyone knows global warming exists and everyone also clearly sees the connection between humans and global warming.
    Now who is dancing around the issue?

    No, I am not talking about the cyclical "global warming" since the last Ice Age. I am talking about the adnormal human-related global warming rhetoric that is constantly spewed forth by Gore and his disciples.

    This is the consensus of a mountain of evidence by the scientific community
    And there is a mountain of evidence that says the proposition is shaky at best.

    and no twisting or spinning can make that go away gojeda.
    Scaremongering is a poor subsitution for the facts.

    good night sir!
    Good night to you mate!
  18. #1238  
    I see no scientific evidence from you, only rhetoric gojeda.
  19. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1239  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    I see no scientific evidence from you, only rhetoric gojeda.
    Here is the opinion of the MIT scientist I was alluding to:
    http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

    Another story:
    http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...e,176495.shtml

    NASA admits GISS database errors:
    http://www.geotimes.org/aug07/articl...a081607_2.html

    Shall I go on?

    Cell, I've had this conversation before many times, with a lot of people from different backgrounds - mostly scientific, some who believe and disbelieve abdnormal global warming. I think it is safe to say that we are not going to change each other's mind.

    However, if you want to slog it out, I will oblige you.
  20. #1240  
    There is no controversy of the major climate science organizations on this issue. I support the views of the vast majority of climate scientists, you do not. You are right, you cannot change my mind with your rhetoric or obscure news articles.

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
    -more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels.

    U.S. National Research Council, 2001
    Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century

    American Chemical Society
    The American Chemical Society stated, "There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century.

    American Meteorological Society
    Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases

    American Geophysical Union
    declares its virtual certainty that rising levels of greenhouse gases will cause the global surface temperature to be warmer: Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate.

    Geological Society of America
    "The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities

    American Astronomical Society
    global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change.

    American Association for the Advancement of Science
    The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.

    Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
    "We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling."

Posting Permissions