Global Warming - Fact or Fiction?

[dave]

Originally Posted by Hazzle

Debatable. All depends whether you include the environmental impact of the actual production of the vehicles.

Hydrogen fuel cells, however, spell the future of cars.

I used to commute to work in a 1972 Z600 Honda Sport Coupe that I paid $1575.00 for brand new. It would go 72 mph and get 54 miles/gallon. Stuff your imitation Hybrids.

And I find it weird that Fred Edeskuty (The Leading Scientist in the group developing Hydrogen fueled cars at Los Alamos National Laboratory) who lives over in the next valley from me and rebuilds old cars, doesn't have a hydrogen powered car at his house.

Fred Edeskuty Hydrogen Cars

Direct Hydrogen Fueled Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell System for Transportation Applications

We did lose a World Famous Ballooning pioneer this last September because (it is speculated that) Lightning hit his Hydrogen Balloon and it descended into the Adriatic at over 50 miles an hour... (The descent is real, and recorded and tracked, the lightning is probable.)

[da bahstid]

It's all a hoax people. Millions of tons of infrared-absorbing CO2 annually can't possibly have any effect on global temperatures. Any more than has cutting down half the world's forests contributed to diminishing populations of land animals. There's no proof of a connection at all. The scientists are just lining their pockets with the income they always make anyway and that claim doesn't apply at all to the hundreds of billions of dollars big oil rakes in annually. Just saying.

[Hazzle]

Of course it has an effect. The question is a) how much and b) whether the "solutions" are really much better. In the case of hybrids, I'd say no, but I'm very much in favour of greater research into hydrogen fuel cells.

Not just for cars either. Wind farms and hydroelectricity will never produce enough energy for our needs, and I don't think forcibly lessening our needs would benefit mankind either. However burning coal to generate electricity cannot continue endlessly. Setting aside the impact to global temperature, there's smog, and even more pressing, scarcity.

That to me is the crux of the fossil fuel argument. It shouldn't be about whether the planet is warming (which it is) or whether CO2 has any impact (which it clearly does) or even about how much (where I think there is probably some genuine debate). We're running out of fossil fuels, and eventually we'll have to find alternative energy sources, not because of global warming, but because of scarcity.

[da bahstid]

I suppose that's a somewhat moderated response compared to most of what I usually see. Although...

Whether or not the planet is warming absolutely should be an issue. At this point, the best rough estimates are that the planet has warmed about 1F. Not a whole boatload, yet it's remarkable how large an impact that has made. Self-labeled "skeptics" argue that some or all of that warming is something other than the only major environmental change that's been consistent over the course of the warming trend. One day it's the sun, until they realize the sun was actually on a mild dimming cycle through most of the last four decades. Then it must be termites or cosmic rays or a myriad of other imaginative rationalizations. Now the focus is on the oceans, and yes there is expectation that this should have influence. Problem the "skeptics" don't seem to grasp is that this can and probably will swing in either direction. There will always be "noise" affecting how accurate measurements are, and there are reasons to think some of that noise has actually resulted in less warming due to cooling factors, not just noise that is convenient to the interests of big oil.

But here's where the real concern is: roughly half of the current elevation of CO2 in the atmosphere is attributable specifically to America. America only constitutes about 5% of the world's population. So what happens when the other 95% is burning as much as we are? A 0.5 to 1.5F shift hasn't proven to be too catastrophic to everyone yet. A 5 to 15F shift however...

Now hopefully we can't get to that point, but I see no reason to test that speculation out. I don't get why Republicans in general are so deadset on protecting the interests of big oil at the expense of literally everything else, including the economy. And this is exactly the stupidity of Republican desperation to protect big oil by claiming global warming is myth. Increasing demand for oil worldwide driving energy prices up is one of the two most Important factors limiting america's current economic growth. Until alternative energies come to marketable fruition to provide competition to drive prices down, there literally isn't enough energy to power continued economic prosperity. But the resentment that this energy might actually "save the planet" and prove the liberals right is too much for Republicans to bear.

Personally, my bet is on solar, biofuel being a substantial subset therein. Hydrogen isn't looking as feasible from a safety standpoint, and battery technology as it applies to electrics and hybrids is far from a finished technology ie- "dirty" byproducts of current battery manufacturing isn't necessarily a requirement of future electrical storage technology.

[dave]

Originally Posted by da bahstid

Now hopefully we can't get to that point, but I see no reason to test that speculation out. I don't get why Republicans in general are so deadset on protecting the interests of big oil at the expense of literally everything else, including the economy.

Could you do me a tiny favor? Could you actually read the past discussion we have had here, and take a beginning Economics class which has an emphasis on "Futures Trading."

Pretty Please?

The first thing you might learn (assuming that you ...) is that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have anything to do with the ability to trade on the "Commodity Futures Market" and thusly to set the future price of oil. It has nothing to do with what is happening in the world right now. The price of oil 30 days from now is set by people buying a 30 day "future" in oil and expecting a positive return.

Originally Posted by An Explanation Of Oil Futures

The majority of crude oil is sold in the form of contracts offered on commodities exchanges. These contracts, called "futures," guarantee the holder delivery of a set amount of crude oil on a certain date at a predetermined location.

Features
Futures contracts are listed on exchanges by oil producers or brokers who are contracted to receive the oil from them. These contracts are then bought and sold by investors, with the price of each contract changing constantly depending on the relative demand of each investor.

Read more: An Explanation of Oil Futures | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_7157148_ex...#ixzz1K8JlbH8X

Funny thing is, at the end of the 30 days somebody has to use that contract and buy the oil. So the price is actually set by investors trying to buy that 30 day contract. Some of them actually pay attention to what is going on, but the majority of those investors are computers managing huge retirement funds and they don't care what the price is as long as they get a tiny profit in the 30 days. So, "Global Warming/Climate Change" is not your issue. If you want to talk about your issue, start a new topic and see if anyone cares. If you want to talk about "Global Warming/Climate Change" read what we've already discussed and add something new to the discussion. Play Fair, or Go Home.

Originally Posted by da bahstid

And this is exactly the stupidity of Republican desperation to protect big oil by claiming global warming is myth. Increasing demand for oil worldwide driving energy prices up is one of the two most Important factors limiting america's current economic growth.

[dave]

Fuel Cell Vehicle that got 44.1 Miles per kiloWatt Hour (?) Whatever that means.



Wired Magazine April 18, Ultra-Efficient Racer Gets 2,564.8 MPG

Note that the 44.1 Miles/kWh doesn't seem to be anywhere near the 2,564.8 Miles per Gallon that the conventional vehicle got.

[da bahstid]

Wow Dave. Way to miss a point. You should reread the thread title. Not only did you not address anything I am talking about, you wandered completely off-topic. And you may want to brush up on your economics so you can think through the conceptual applicability of your thoughts to the subject matter at hand. In the discussion of global warming there is authentic information, and then there is the misinformation that is being created to confuse or distract people from what is actually going on.

The science of greenhouse effect is clearly established to the point of being irrefutable. All the generous misinformation being forwarded by the "skeptics" is fueled by political interests that have aggressively reinforced the false premise that we need to run exclusively on oil to prosper economically. People that stay loyal to those modes of thinking in the interests of following their political allegiances should rethink if they're really doing what's in their best interests in the long-term. This is why I'm bringing this up - I'm spelling out where the fiction in this issue is really coming from and why. Diversification of energy sources into renewable, green options is not only more environmentally responsible. It opens up the opportunity for greater competition as well as increasing supply, an increasing issue as we divide available resources with India and China. Your statements have no applicability whatsoever. And how you are unable to piece that together if you've really taken any economics at all is remarkable.

[dave]

Originally Posted by da bahstid

Wow Dave. Way to miss a point. You should reread the thread title. Not only did you not address anything I am talking about, you wandered completely off-topic.

That would be "Global Warming - Fact or Fiction?" You seem to believe that the Marxist plot to scare America into forcing the Third World countries into taking charge of the world through Fear is somehow real? Is that what you are trying to say?

Originally Posted by da bahstid

And you may want to brush up on your economics so you can think through the conceptual applicability of your thoughts to the subject matter at hand.

I'm sorry that you used the example of the exploding fuel prices to try to bolster your argument. I merely told you that you are wrong, that the fuel prices (and the food prices, for that matter) have an entirely different cause and that cause is destroying the Arabic world and is not due to the politics here in America. It is due to the "Futures Trading" and the investments by huge corporations and other countries.

Originally Posted by da bahstid

In the discussion of global warming there is authentic information, and then there is the misinformation that is being created to confuse or distract people from what is actually going on.

No, there are lies. So many lies that people are now running away from the "Global Warming/Climate Change" camp as fast as they can. You really should read some of the links in the previous discussions, and if you can't read, there are movies you can watch which explain what has happened.

Originally Posted by dave

This is a link to part one of five youtube videos of Lord Moncton talking about the origins and linkages of the "GlobalWarming/Marxist" community. You should enjoy this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHyMY...eature=related

Originally Posted by da bahstid

The science of greenhouse effect is clearly established to the point of being irrefutable.

Originally Posted by da bahstid

All the generous misinformation being forwarded by the "skeptics" is fueled by political interests that have aggressively reinforced the false premise that we need to run exclusively on oil to prosper economically.

Originally Posted by da bahstid

People that stay loyal to those modes of thinking in the interests of following their political allegiances should rethink if they're really doing what's in their best interests in the long-term.

Originally Posted by da bahstid

This is why I'm bringing this up - I'm spelling out where the fiction in this issue is really coming from and why.

Originally Posted by da bahstid

Diversification of energy sources into renewable, green options is not only more environmentally responsible. It opens up the opportunity for greater competition as well as increasing supply, an increasing issue as we divide available resources with India and China.

Originally Posted by da bahstid

Your statements have no applicability whatsoever. And how you are unable to piece that together if you've really taken any economics at all is remarkable.

I didn't ask you to apply my statements, I politely told you that the people who used to say the things that you seem to be saying have admitted that they lied and some tenured professors have been fired and even the Democrats in Congress are denying that they ever said what you are saying.

[dave]

You started this discussion with your fifth posting, and you said precisely the opposite of everything you seem to be arguing now. There is no indication that you were trying to be humorous. Are you Trolling? I'm too old to spend what few braincells I have left arguing with a Troll. The reason I ask is that nobody has said the things you are saying for over a year, and your language is so stilted that it sounds like someone who is "performing" instead of someone who actually believes what he is saying.

DNFTT

Originally Posted by da bahstid

It's all a hoax people. Millions of tons of infrared-absorbing CO2 annually can't possibly have any effect on global temperatures. Any more than has cutting down half the world's forests contributed to diminishing populations of land animals. There's no proof of a connection at all. The scientists are just lining their pockets with the income they always make anyway and that claim doesn't apply at all to the hundreds of billions of dollars big oil rakes in annually. Just saying.

[da bahstid]

Dave, this is pretty easy. I've got degrees in the field, and you obviously don't. Where the lies are coming from is pretty obvious to anyone that has an actual science background. Posting a bunch of internet sources as if they constitute reliable sources of information is what is laughable. Anyone with a proper background sees right through the gimmickry.

I repeat: the science of greenhouse effect has been established for decades now. You probably should read up on what has been established since long before this ever became a political debate. Like the absorption spectra of organic compounds and the chemical properties that give rise to them. Or the heat radiation spectra of objects as determined by temperature and the equations that govern them. And then the simple fact that atmospheric CO2 levels have risen 30% without any scientifically plausible explanation outside of the obvious, scientifically established man-made causes. All irrefutable concepts thar are immune to your senseless political blathering.

Then, if you had any science background at all, you might check on your own time the relative temperatures of assorted planets and moons throughout the solar system, and compare then to what has been established for decades in regards to greenhouse effect. In no time at all, any objective mind would quickly come to the exact conclusions I and 95+% of the scientific community has, and agree with the finding that the Earth IS warming, and that the overwhelmingly predominant affector is increasing CO2 levels due to human influence. All the distraction tools being employed by big oil is just that: distraction.

[dave]

Originally Posted by da bahstid

Dave, this is pretty easy. I've got degrees in the field, and you obviously don't. Where the lies are coming from is pretty obvious to anyone that has an actual science background.

Then why are you hiding behind a pseudonym? You obviously don't have the education you claim or you wouldn't be talking about using planets without atmospheres to bolster your greenhouse gas arguments. You are a Troll and Useless.

Originally Posted by da bahstid

Posting a bunch of internet sources as if they constitute reliable sources of information is what is laughable. Anyone with a proper background sees right through the gimmickry.

Anyone but you. You obviously know nothing about all this, and don't even take the time to read up about it. I'll bet that you don't even understand the IPCC papers, do you?

Originally Posted by da bahstid

I repeat: the science of greenhouse effect has been established for decades now. You probably should read up on what has been established since long before this ever became a political debate. Like the absorption spectra of organic compounds and the chemical properties that give rise to them. Or the heat radiation spectra of objects as determined by temperature and the equations that govern them. And then the simple fact that atmospheric CO2 levels have risen 30% without any scientifically plausible explanation outside of the obvious, scientifically established man-made causes. All irrefutable concepts that are immune to your senseless political blathering.

The concepts may be irrefutable, but the data has been manipulated. They Lied! There is nothing more reprehensible in the Scientific Community than a "Scientist" who lies. Go Away. You don't use your name, you don't cite sources, you are a liar.

Originally Posted by da bahstid

Then, if you had any science background at all, you might check on your own time the relative temperatures of assorted planets and moons throughout the solar system, and compare then to what has been established for decades in regards to greenhouse effect. In no time at all, any objective mind would quickly come to the exact conclusions I and 95+% of the scientific community has, and agree with the finding that the Earth IS warming, and that the overwhelmingly predominant affector is increasing CO2 levels due to human influence. All the distraction tools being employed by big oil is just that: distraction.

And that whole paragraph is you spouting garbage that has nothing to do with the discussion. Your attempt to "baffle them with bullshit." Guess What Mister Anonymous Troll.. You Lose.

[da bahstid]

Test 1

[da bahstid]

I see...

Something that never ceases to entertain regarding right-wing extremists is their illogical belief that stammering, stubbornness, and belligerently attempting to force their beliefs on everyone else will somehow eventually make them right. As if the laws of physics will magically rewrite themselves to accomodate whatever it is that's convenient for you to believe.

Well, here in the real world, 2010 just tied 2005 for hottest year on record, both years passing up the previous high in 1998 which "skeptics" at the time insisted would be the end of it. Since I'm presently typing on a PC instead of from my cell phone, I can now post a source:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html



It's worth noting that, unlike pretty much any source you are going to use, this source is credible. Because unlike any number of random propaganda websites you obviously frequent that are free to spew misinformation due to the complete absence of journalistic regulation on the internet, this is coming from the United States Department of Commerce.

Of course, none of the observations and measurements contained therein are any surprise to real scientists that understand the full theory of how greenhouse effect works. It all simply follows the predictions we have been making for decades now, just like the 1998 measurements and entire warming trend of the last few decades have. Book it: we predict more of the same.

Human activity has increased CO2 levels by roughly 30%. CO2 absorbs heat radiating from the Earth, so an increase thereof magnifies greenhouse effect resulting in net warming. Slow re-equilibration of H2O levels in the atmosphere in response to warming of ocean bodies will magnify that further over time. I kind of WANT to explain every component of this in significantly more technical detail, but seeing as your formal education on the subject appears to not even be at a middle-school level (you don't even know that other planets have atmospheres for crying out loud), I would clearly be wasting my time.

I along with over 95% of the scientific community have no need to have anything proven to us by the IPCC papers because the underlying theory is so elementary. It's simply the way it works. You clearly haven't realized this, but the IPCC has long since moved on from the inevitable general prediction and is now working on understanding localized interactions and dynamics that affect heat redistribution to generate more precise predictive models. It's the skeptics such as yourself that can't understand the IPCC papers, because you seem to think arguing details of local redistribution is relevant to disproving global warming.

But one thing is certain: there is no reason to expect things to stop going the way they are, as evidenced by more extreme examples of greenhouse effect elsewhere in the solar system that you wish had nothing to do with the discussion.

Anyway, calling scientists liars and trolls is not going to stop our predictions from coming true. Doesn't matter how many exclamation points you add. Nor will dreaming up conspiracy theories of scientists being on some secret Marxist crusade to help China take over the world. Speaking of which, does it ever occur to you how far off the deep end you look when you type such ridiculous nonsense on a public forum? My first post in this thread wasn't some veiled attempt to troll in any way, I was openly poking fun of political extremists that profess obviously ridiculous beliefs against the face of established fact. I mean, how dense do you have to be to not connect that decimating the natural habitats of assorted species has contributed to them being endangered? Really? I'm pretty sure you're the only person here who couldn't tell such an intentionally silly statement was anything other than humor, because apparently you literally are that far detached from reality.

Sorry Dave, but the simple fact of the matter is you lose. Posting additional ranting and raving just to get the last word doesn't matter when we're predicting exactly where things are going while the whole world watches it unfolding before their eyes. Time will continue to prove us right and you wrong. Naturally, your knee-jerk response will be to continue stubbornly clinging to your beliefs, trying to impose them on everyone else as if that will change things, but in the real world all you're really accomplishing is prolonging your public self-embarassment. The fact that I can see this coming from a mile away is what makes this topic fun.

[dave]

And yet you are still afraid to use your real name. And you are getting really boring. Refute Lord Moncton if you think you can, And then try and refute Doctor Singer. You haven't actually added anything to the discussion. Your link to NOAA who have already apologized for lying about the "Hottest Year Ever" figures and all those lies that you are trying to promulgate... You are no Scientist. A Scientist signs his own name to his writing. You sir are a worthless source of misinformation (notice that I didn't call you a liar, I merely said that you tell lies. Canards.)

[da bahstid]

Actually, I've added nothing but hard FACTS, something that's generally missing in global warming discussions I find. Facts that anyone can look up anywhere, most importantly in college textbooks. But don't let facts get in the way of your political opinions (or those of your hand-picked "authorities" who have no scientific credbility whatsoever).

As far as any fictitious apology by the NOAA, anyone with half a wit of common sense knows if such a thing were to ever happen, the NOAA would have editted their own site. Funny...seems to me the NOAA stands by their research data. So...is this "apology" coming from another one of your internet propaganda sites (who again are not held liable for spreading blatant misinformation) or did you just make that one up on your own? You should look up the definition of a "lie" sometime, then look hard at what you're doing. Like so much political smearing by right-wing extremists, your accusations are nothing more than Freudian projection.

Back to the topic of global warming, among leading experts in climatology (herein defined as doctorates in the field who are actively publishing research) there is over 97% consensus that the current global warming trend is man-made.



So while Big Oil and political propaganda machines have been extremely effective in misinforming the public, the scientists are simply not fooled. Might have something to do with the fact that we actually look at real data coming from reliable, published sources. For frame of reference as to how one-sided that data has been, a study in 2004 found that not one paper published between 1993 to 2003 rejected the current consensus position of man-made global warming.

Course, why not just look at some of the results we've already seen, courtesy of NASA satellite photos.


1979 2003

Not surprisingly, the observations fit the theory.

[da bahstid]

Originally Posted by dave

You don't use your name, you don't cite sources, you are a liar.

Originally Posted by dave

...notice that I didn't call you a liar, I merely said that you tell lies.

Fantastic memory there.

[dave]

You're right. I did call you a liar in another place. (Too bad you can't keep things in context but have to jam everything together. Obviously not a Scientist.) So, you do believe that once a liar, always a liar. I believe that too.

What's the matter? We're no fun for you Troll? Didn't your "Intelligent Design" argument go over so you had to switch to the "Global Warming canard Troll?

You actually believe that mankind can destroy the world merely by driving too many automobiles? (Obviously not a Scientist. You "make up" your own statistics... 97% of the etc. etc. etc.)

DNFTT

And just in case you don't understand how far the pendulum has swung away from the Marxist position, The Supremes Chill Global “Warming” Alarmists

[da bahstid]

So look who's trolling now...

In reality, this is just another example of Freudian projection. It always was, really. I guess I must be the first person to bother teasing you out of your masquerade as a reliable source of responsible information. Now that it's obvious you have no scientifically responsible information you're left with nothing more than insults and accusations.

You're trying and accuse me of being an Intelligent Design proponent? Really? That sort of hogwash comes almost exclusively from your end of the political spectrum there, chief. I half expected you to start promoting it after a while to be honest. This more Freudian projection on your part? Then again, making up fictitious accusations about people is something right-wing extremists are specialists at. We all know it's established internet fact that Obama's a socialist who was born in Kenya, Bush eats babies but only when they're French which is why he's a REAL American, and you are a proponent of equal rights for yourself and other child molestors (don't lie we all saw it).

But yes, at least we agree on one thing: once a liar, always a liar. No ability to verify your false claim regarding the "NOAA who have already apologized for lying about the 'Hottest Year Ever' figures", eh? Since you aren't even bothering to link a source, I guess you really DID just make that one up as you were typing along. No surprise. It's what you people do.

Now a reasonable person would realize they've been caught lying and would back off and hopefully consider not doing it again. But we both know that's not what you're going to do, is it? You're just going to come back with more lies, more misinformation, more distraction. Just continue the cycle of lying. And you should. Because as the years pass and climate change increasingly responds to global warming, people on this board, in your life, including most importantly your children and your children's children, will come to remember you for exactly what you are: a loathesome, intrinsically dishonest political shill who stood up for the lies of Big Oil at the expense of everyone's future. Help make sure they remember.

2010 tied with 2005 as hottest year on record



This despite coming off the deepest solar minimum in decades





Along the way we are seeing the most severe weather extremes since 1816

[da bahstid]

Originally Posted by dave

You "make up" your own statistics... 97% of the etc. etc. etc.

Amazing to see you even try this manipulation immediately after seeing my source:

"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

I suppose I must have just made up this picture too...



Yeah, completely made it up on my free time. No, really...

[da bahstid]

Eh may as well throw some more information out before I go hit the bars...

2011 on pace to set record for most expensive year for natural disasters

"The United States has seen eight weather disasters this year exceeding $1 billion each in damage, and the annual hurricane season has hardly begun...The record is nine in a single year, in 2008."

Effects to crops and water supplies we are seeing right now

"In Iowa, even without admitting that climate change is real, farmers are acting as if it is, spending millions of dollars to alter their practices. They are adding tile drainage to their fields to cope with increased floods, buying bigger machinery to move more quickly because their planting window has become shorter, planting a month earlier than they did 50 years ago, and sowing twice as many corn plants per acre to exploit the additional moisture"

-Scientific American, late June 2011