Fact of the matter is both sides do it ad neasuem.
"Antarctic Ice is breaking off!!!:
Yeah in a small area while in fact he rest of the Antarctic ice is thickening (90% of Antarctic), and in fact could be pushing the ice off the Antarctic Peninsula, and global warming has nothing to do with it.
"This summer is way hotter than usual!"
"This summer is way cooler than usual!"
"This winter is way warmer than usual!"
"This winter is way cooler than usual!"
In fact Big Warming is the worst in this respect. Every time any anecdotal evidence anywhere in the world is even slightly higher that it was in any time in history, they start talking about GW, crops failing, Ice melting, rising sea levels OH MY!!!!
Now they have a new thing. Anytime anything is different, colder or warmer they start talking about Global warming. In fact the above mentioned snow in Australia in summertime has been used as evidence of global warming; The Tsunami in Indonesia was used as evidence of global warming, even though it is a tectonic event that has no relation to global temperature. I'm surprised they haven't blamed McDonalds new Salad menu on global Warming.
Really, should we consider these to be statements without facts to back them up?
On point 1. Some European countries do allow firearms, and in fact in some cases mandate ownership, these are typically the nations with lower crime rates. Evidence also does not support that restricting firearms reduces crime. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/cft a-rfn020805.php/
In all the cry of Big Warming is "Everyone knows its true" Which only holds when you discount those that do not hold it is true, those that do not hold its true include the majority of climatologists.
And since when is the European opinion the end all be all in the discussion? How does "The Europeans believe it so it must be true!" statement work. Regardless the majority of Big Warming is here in the States, not in Europe, so your statement makes no sense, because the Majority of GW BS is domestic, not imported.
It should also be noted that the scientists that discovered the flaws, and poor science, in the infamous "Hockey Stick" data are Canadians, McIntyre and McKitrick.
Really, should we consider these to be statements without facts to back them up?
On point 1. Some European countries do allow firearms, and in fact in some cases mandate ownership, these are typically the nations with lower crime rates. Evidence also does not support that restricting firearms reduces crime. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/c fta-rfn020805.php
On Point 2, here is a list of European articles that do not support the huge Global Warming scare industry. All European articles from this month. Should you want more citations I can gladly supply them.
Natural climate change may be larger than commonly thought
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/src -ncc020905.php
Discounting global warming, and more importantly the costs of fighting it even if it is true.
http://www.lomborg.com/index.html
And before people say, as they always do, "wasn't he discredited?" No, those that tried to discredit him were in fact told to "put up or shut up" and since they had no facts that proved him wrong they had to shut up.
Prometheus: A Climate of Staged Angst Archives (English reprint of German article)
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archi ves/climate_change/000343a_climate_of_staged_.html
UK Anti-global warming Blog
http://greenspin.blogspot.com/
RUSSIA SHOULD DENOUNCE KYOTO PROTOCOL IMMEDIATELY
http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id =5377079&startrow=1&date=2005-02-04&do_alert=0
ILLARIONOV CRITICIZES CENSORSHIP BIAS AT CLIMATIC CONFERENCE
http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id =5371407&startrow=1&date=2005-02-02&do_alert=0
In all the cry of Big Warming is "Everyone knows its true" Which only holds when you discount those that do not hold it is true, those that do not hold its true include the majority of climatologists.
And since when is the European opinion the end all be all in the discussion? How does "The Europeans believe it so it must be true!" statement work. Regardless the majority of Big Warming is here in the States, not in Europe, so your statement makes no sense, because the Majority of GW BS is domestic, not imported.
It should also be noted that the scientists that discovered the flaws, and poor science, in the infamous "Hockey Stick" data are Canadians, McIntyre and McKitrick.
Global Mean Temperature Variance From Average, Lower Troposphere, December 2004: +0.102 C
(Northern Hemisphere: +0.146 C , Southern Hemisphere: +0.010 C )
Peak recorded: +0.746 C April 1998. Current change relative to peak recorded:
While I would disagree with some of your statements. The only thing I will say is that Water Vapor is much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 is.
CO2 is a bit player in the game.
Or you could look at the real data not manipulated which isn't anywhere near as dramatic.
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vost ok.co2.gif
"Arctic average temperature has risen at almost twice the rate as the rest of the world in the past few decades"
Exactly, they look at data in the past few decades, when you look at longer time scales you see that the slope of the line (Increase) is much less than it has been in the past.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/64N-90N1880-2 003.gif
As shown, it is worming less than it did in the past. It's all in what you take for a point of reference. And if you map from peak temp in 1938 to today you see a small decrease.
"But this doesn't change the fact that our best computer models, with the most conservative settings, all predict that CO2 will cause global warming."
And that does't change the fact that current models, when fed historical data, cannot predict accurately the data that we already have. Nor do we have anywhwere enough data to predict anything. Our sample set is miniscule.
"The Arctic ice cap is thinning"
Nope, it's getting thicker. It is also getting colder. That is what the temprature data says anyways.
"the Antarctic ice cap is breaking up and melting where it is over water"
Yes it is in the Antarctic Peninsula, a small portion of the Antarctic, the rest of the Antarctic is getting colder, and the ice is getting thicker (Which could in fact be pushing the Ice of the Antarctic Peninsula).
"sea temperatures are rising"
Not anywhere in the world. All the data is contrary to that.
"if you want to see glaciers in the US's Glacier National Park, you'd better go soon"
Some are retreating, some are growing. That's what glaciers do. The spot I'm sitting on was once covered with a glacier.
Show me any data that disputes my claims, the fact is that the later half of the twentieth Century was NOT the warmest, the warmest was earlier in the century (with 1938 being the warmest), and post 1945 we saw a cooling trend that lasted until the late 60's, while CO2 continued to increase. The current warming trend only goes back as far as the late 60's, and follows a global cooling trend.
Because you only listen to the American ones. In fact the amount of Non-americans who reject the global warming theory is slightly higher. But neither foriegn or amercain scientists who have serious questions get in the news.
This guy is decidedly non-american
http://www.lomborg.com/index.html
And before someoe chimes in with "Wasn't his book already discounted" The real story is that the DSCD did discount his book, but then had to recind their comments, because it turns out it was the DSCD facts that had no basis in reality.
"second law of thermodynamics (entropy) The energy available after a chemical reaction is less than that at the beginning of a reaction; energy conversions are not 100% efficient."
Even if it's more efficient than electrolysis, you will not have more energy in the hydrogen you use to burn than energy you used to create it. Thus unless you live close to free power like Canada and hydroelectric, or Iceland and geothermal, you need to burn fossil fuels or Nuclear power just to make the hydrogen, wheter you use electrolysis, of superheated water, or whatever scheme, since you can never reach 100% efficiency, much less exceed it it is all irrelevant as you still need some form of power that is not hydrogen to create it.
Please look beyond step one, and when using technology please do not forget to use science, else your wasting everyones time.
Absolutely right. Though it's not that easy to seperate from the rest of the water due to it's almost identical chemical properties. Therefore pulling Deutirium out of seawater is not easy. Just as seperating U235 from U238 is not easy. Then seperating out the oxygen also uses loads of juice.
In other words, it's as difficult to manufacture as HE3, which only takes massive amounts of juice to pull a neutron out of naturally occuring HE4, which is easy to find.
Take the energy required to lift to the moon, heat up lunar soil to extract the HE3, and then pop it down the gravity well to instead manufacture HE3. At the absolute worse you will only need to creat seed amounts to get the reactors working.
All again irrelevant as it' easier to create a standard Deutiruim/tritium reactor than to use HE3.
"For the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that the He3 fusion plants have been proved out, and folks are frantically building them,"
They haven't, therefore the entire discusion of looking for and transportin HE3 and using it as a power source is irrelevant.
Made even more irrelevant by the fact that the reaction specified requires equal amounts of deutirium. Another item we don't have loads of about. Where to we go to get the deutirium? The planet Mercury?
And what's this about HE3 only being availaible on the moon. It's also available on Earth, and used already. And in fact would probably be easier to manufacture on Earth than to mine it from the moon.
But all made even more irrelevant by the fact that if we can get an HE3/H2 reactor to work, we can probably get an H reactor to work. Maybe it won't be as efficient, but at least we don't have to go to the moon to get the fuel. Not to mention that a straight Hydrogen fusion reaction leaves over just a neutron, while an HE3/H2 reaction leaves over a proton, making it slightly more radioactive.
The entire concept is as ridiculous as the other "Enviornmentally friendly" alternatives bandied about, like solar stirling engines, wind farm, you might as well propose hamsters on treadmils or burning perriwinkles. They are all about equally feasible.
No I havent RTFA
But can someone explain to me how you couldn't do the exact same thing by gluing an RFID tag on the back of some part of the phone like the battery cover or something.
First they came for the smokersBR>
and I did not speak out--because I was not a smokers.
Then they came for the red meat eaters
and I did not speak out--because I was not a red meat eater.
Then they came for the drinkers
and I did not speak out--because I was not a drinker.
Then they came for me--
and I said "Do whatever you want. I've been eating bean sprouts and drinking Soy milk for three years and I'm ready to jump in front of a Bus."
Ice from compacted snow actually does contain less water, by volume, than the water it displaces. Due to trapped air. Air in water is bouyant, but above water it is the same as eqaul density air around it, but still has weighht being trapped within a mass.
Of course this effect is pretty negligible except for at the very surface.
But remember. Snow takes up approx 3x the volume of water. Multiple this time massive amounts of surface snow and while negligible, is still a measurable effect. Pushing the # towards less volume, rather than the same.
Yeah. Do you have a globe handy at all? Look at the area (never mind the volume) of Ice supported by land. Compare that to the area of the Pacific ocean, that's just one of many oceans.
Since I know you won't (ideologues are so predictable.
Antarctica 14 million square kilometers
Pacific ocean 165.384 million sq km
Atlantic ocean 82 million sq km
Indian ocean 68.556 million sq km
Or to compare
Antarctica (and yes there are other glaciers but Antarctica is far larger than any of them) is roughly 5% the area of the 3 largest oceans, if we start talking in terms of volume, forget it, the ice cap is less than 0.1% of the volume of these oceans.
So anyway. How do you compare emptying one ice tray in your freezer into a large bath tub, or small pool to raising the water levels of the entire world to anything beyond negligible.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have any way of Correlating manufactured good per carbon emmisions.
Last I checked we had a bit larger Industial base than Finland.
Though our production of lutefisk was signifigantly lower.
Fact of the matter is both sides do it ad neasuem.
5 /02/snow_in_australia.html?cat=Resorts
"Antarctic Ice is breaking off!!!:
Yeah in a small area while in fact he rest of the Antarctic ice is thickening (90% of Antarctic), and in fact could be pushing the ice off the Antarctic Peninsula, and global warming has nothing to do with it.
"This summer is way hotter than usual!"
"This summer is way cooler than usual!"
"This winter is way warmer than usual!"
"This winter is way cooler than usual!"
"It's warmer than usual for winter in Canada!"
"It's snowing in Australia in the summer!"
http://www.skipressworld.com/eu/en/daily_news/200
In fact Big Warming is the worst in this respect. Every time any anecdotal evidence anywhere in the world is even slightly higher that it was in any time in history, they start talking about GW, crops failing, Ice melting, rising sea levels OH MY!!!!
Now they have a new thing. Anytime anything is different, colder or warmer they start talking about Global warming. In fact the above mentioned snow in Australia in summertime has been used as evidence of global warming; The Tsunami in Indonesia was used as evidence of global warming, even though it is a tectonic event that has no relation to global temperature. I'm surprised they haven't blamed McDonalds new Salad menu on global Warming.
Really, should we consider these to be statements without facts to back them up?
t a-rfn020805.php/
c -ncc020905.php/
i ves/climate_change/000343a_climate_of_staged_.html
? id=143012005
d =5377079&startrow=1&date=2005-02-04&do_alert=0
d =5371407&startrow=1&date=2005-02-02&do_alert=0
On point 1. Some European countries do allow firearms, and in fact in some cases mandate ownership, these are typically the nations with lower crime rates. Evidence also does not support that restricting firearms reduces crime.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/cf
On Point 2, here is a list of European articles that do not support the huge Global Warming scare industry. All European articles from this month. Should you want more citations I can gladly supply them.
Natural climate change may be larger than commonly thought
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/sr
Discounting global warming, and more importantly the costs of fighting it even if it is true. http://www.lomborg.com/index.html
And before people say, as they always do, "wasn't he discredited?" No, those that tried to discredit him were in fact told to "put up or shut up" and since they had no facts that proved him wrong they had to shut up.
Prometheus: A Climate of Staged Angst Archives (English reprint of German article)
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/arch
UK Anti-global warming Blog
http://greenspin.blogspot.com/
Polar bears defy extinction threat
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm
RUSSIA SHOULD DENOUNCE KYOTO PROTOCOL IMMEDIATELY
http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_i
ILLARIONOV CRITICIZES CENSORSHIP BIAS AT CLIMATIC CONFERENCE
http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_i
In all the cry of Big Warming is "Everyone knows its true" Which only holds when you discount those that do not hold it is true, those that do not hold its true include the majority of climatologists.
And since when is the European opinion the end all be all in the discussion? How does "The Europeans believe it so it must be true!" statement work. Regardless the majority of Big Warming is here in the States, not in Europe, so your statement makes no sense, because the Majority of GW BS is domestic, not imported.
It should also be noted that the scientists that discovered the flaws, and poor science, in the infamous "Hockey Stick" data are Canadians, McIntyre and McKitrick.
Can you give me one signifigant difference between an SUV and a minivan?
And if not, please explain why SUVs are evil, and Minivans are not.
Really, should we consider these to be statements without facts to back them up?
c fta-rfn020805.php
c -ncc020905.php
i ves/climate_change/000343a_climate_of_staged_.html
? id=143012005
d =5377079&startrow=1&date=2005-02-04&do_alert=0
d =5371407&startrow=1&date=2005-02-02&do_alert=0
On point 1. Some European countries do allow firearms, and in fact in some cases mandate ownership, these are typically the nations with lower crime rates. Evidence also does not support that restricting firearms reduces crime.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/
On Point 2, here is a list of European articles that do not support the huge Global Warming scare industry. All European articles from this month. Should you want more citations I can gladly supply them.
Natural climate change may be larger than commonly thought
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/sr
Discounting global warming, and more importantly the costs of fighting it even if it is true.
http://www.lomborg.com/index.html
And before people say, as they always do, "wasn't he discredited?" No, those that tried to discredit him were in fact told to "put up or shut up" and since they had no facts that proved him wrong they had to shut up.
Prometheus: A Climate of Staged Angst Archives (English reprint of German article)
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/arch
UK Anti-global warming Blog
http://greenspin.blogspot.com/
Polar bears defy extinction threat
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm
RUSSIA SHOULD DENOUNCE KYOTO PROTOCOL IMMEDIATELY
http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_i
ILLARIONOV CRITICIZES CENSORSHIP BIAS AT CLIMATIC CONFERENCE
http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_i
In all the cry of Big Warming is "Everyone knows its true" Which only holds when you discount those that do not hold it is true, those that do not hold its true include the majority of climatologists.
And since when is the European opinion the end all be all in the discussion? How does "The Europeans believe it so it must be true!" statement work. Regardless the majority of Big Warming is here in the States, not in Europe, so your statement makes no sense, because the Majority of GW BS is domestic, not imported.
It should also be noted that the scientists that discovered the flaws, and poor science, in the infamous "Hockey Stick" data are Canadians, McIntyre and McKitrick.
Except of course the upper atmosphere isn't warming, in fact the trend is much less than surface tempratures.
a m_5.1
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhm
Global Mean Temperature Variance From Average, Lower Troposphere, December 2004: +0.102 C (Northern Hemisphere: +0.146 C , Southern Hemisphere: +0.010 C ) Peak recorded: +0.746 C April 1998. Current change relative to peak recorded:
As determined by NOAA Satellite-mounted MSUs
Excepting for the fact that sattelite measurements of the upper atmosphere show less warming than surface data.
In other words the atmosphere is getting cooler.
Worked before. But copying pasting seems to tigger it up. Edit what you paste so that the last says -2003.gif
While I would disagree with some of your statements. The only thing I will say is that Water Vapor is much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 is. CO2 is a bit player in the game.
Your graph also skews the scale making the amount look more than it is.
The data sourrce is listed on the top of the graph, or did ou not notice it?
Arbitrary start and stop points are the hallmark of the global warming movement.
Oh look another non-american publishiing an article today.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O28F51A3A
Or you could look at the real data not manipulated which isn't anywhere near as dramatic. http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vost ok.co2.gif
"Arctic average temperature has risen at almost twice the rate as the rest of the world in the past few decades"
2 003.gif
Exactly, they look at data in the past few decades, when you look at longer time scales you see that the slope of the line (Increase) is much less than it has been in the past.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/64N-90N1880-
As shown, it is worming less than it did in the past. It's all in what you take for a point of reference. And if you map from peak temp in 1938 to today you see a small decrease.
"But this doesn't change the fact that our best computer models, with the most conservative settings, all predict that CO2 will cause global warming."
And that does't change the fact that current models, when fed historical data, cannot predict accurately the data that we already have. Nor do we have anywhwere enough data to predict anything. Our sample set is miniscule.
"The Arctic ice cap is thinning"
Nope, it's getting thicker. It is also getting colder. That is what the temprature data says anyways.
"the Antarctic ice cap is breaking up and melting where it is over water"
Yes it is in the Antarctic Peninsula, a small portion of the Antarctic, the rest of the Antarctic is getting colder, and the ice is getting thicker (Which could in fact be pushing the Ice of the Antarctic Peninsula).
"sea temperatures are rising"
Not anywhere in the world. All the data is contrary to that.
"if you want to see glaciers in the US's Glacier National Park, you'd better go soon"
Some are retreating, some are growing. That's what glaciers do. The spot I'm sitting on was once covered with a glacier.
Show me any data that disputes my claims, the fact is that the later half of the twentieth Century was NOT the warmest, the warmest was earlier in the century (with 1938 being the warmest), and post 1945 we saw a cooling trend that lasted until the late 60's, while CO2 continued to increase. The current warming trend only goes back as far as the late 60's, and follows a global cooling trend.
Because you only listen to the American ones. In fact the amount of Non-americans who reject the global warming theory is slightly higher. But neither foriegn or amercain scientists who have serious questions get in the news.
This guy is decidedly non-american
http://www.lomborg.com/index.html
And before someoe chimes in with "Wasn't his book already discounted" The real story is that the DSCD did discount his book, but then had to recind their comments, because it turns out it was the DSCD facts that had no basis in reality.
"second law of thermodynamics (entropy) The energy available after a chemical reaction is less than that at the beginning of a reaction; energy conversions are not 100% efficient."
Even if it's more efficient than electrolysis, you will not have more energy in the hydrogen you use to burn than energy you used to create it. Thus unless you live close to free power like Canada and hydroelectric, or Iceland and geothermal, you need to burn fossil fuels or Nuclear power just to make the hydrogen, wheter you use electrolysis, of superheated water, or whatever scheme, since you can never reach 100% efficiency, much less exceed it it is all irrelevant as you still need some form of power that is not hydrogen to create it.
Please look beyond step one, and when using technology please do not forget to use science, else your wasting everyones time.
Manufacturing of fuels is NEVER efficient.
Absolutely right. Though it's not that easy to seperate from the rest of the water due to it's almost identical chemical properties. Therefore pulling Deutirium out of seawater is not easy. Just as seperating U235 from U238 is not easy. Then seperating out the oxygen also uses loads of juice.
In other words, it's as difficult to manufacture as HE3, which only takes massive amounts of juice to pull a neutron out of naturally occuring HE4, which is easy to find.
Take the energy required to lift to the moon, heat up lunar soil to extract the HE3, and then pop it down the gravity well to instead manufacture HE3. At the absolute worse you will only need to creat seed amounts to get the reactors working.
All again irrelevant as it' easier to create a standard Deutiruim/tritium reactor than to use HE3.
"For the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that the He3 fusion plants have been proved out, and folks are frantically building them,"
They haven't, therefore the entire discusion of looking for and transportin HE3 and using it as a power source is irrelevant.
Made even more irrelevant by the fact that the reaction specified requires equal amounts of deutirium. Another item we don't have loads of about. Where to we go to get the deutirium? The planet Mercury?
And what's this about HE3 only being availaible on the moon. It's also available on Earth, and used already. And in fact would probably be easier to manufacture on Earth than to mine it from the moon.
But all made even more irrelevant by the fact that if we can get an HE3/H2 reactor to work, we can probably get an H reactor to work. Maybe it won't be as efficient, but at least we don't have to go to the moon to get the fuel. Not to mention that a straight Hydrogen fusion reaction leaves over just a neutron, while an HE3/H2 reaction leaves over a proton, making it slightly more radioactive.
The entire concept is as ridiculous as the other "Enviornmentally friendly" alternatives bandied about, like solar stirling engines, wind farm, you might as well propose hamsters on treadmils or burning perriwinkles. They are all about equally feasible.
No I havent RTFA
But can someone explain to me how you couldn't do the exact same thing by gluing an RFID tag on the back of some part of the phone like the battery cover or something.
First they came for the smokersBR> and I did not speak out--because I was not a smokers.
Then they came for the red meat eaters
and I did not speak out--because I was not a red meat eater.
Then they came for the drinkers
and I did not speak out--because I was not a drinker.
Then they came for me--
and I said "Do whatever you want. I've been eating bean sprouts and drinking Soy milk for three years and I'm ready to jump in front of a Bus."
Oh and PS
Ice from compacted snow actually does contain less water, by volume, than the water it displaces. Due to trapped air. Air in water is bouyant, but above water it is the same as eqaul density air around it, but still has weighht being trapped within a mass.
Of course this effect is pretty negligible except for at the very surface.
But remember. Snow takes up approx 3x the volume of water. Multiple this time massive amounts of surface snow and while negligible, is still a measurable effect. Pushing the # towards less volume, rather than the same.
Yeah. Do you have a globe handy at all? Look at the area (never mind the volume) of Ice supported by land. Compare that to the area of the Pacific ocean, that's just one of many oceans.
Since I know you won't (ideologues are so predictable.
Antarctica 14 million square kilometers
Pacific ocean 165.384 million sq km
Atlantic ocean 82 million sq km
Indian ocean 68.556 million sq km
Or to compare
Antarctica (and yes there are other glaciers but Antarctica is far larger than any of them) is roughly 5% the area of the 3 largest oceans, if we start talking in terms of volume, forget it, the ice cap is less than 0.1% of the volume of these oceans.
So anyway. How do you compare emptying one ice tray in your freezer into a large bath tub, or small pool to raising the water levels of the entire world to anything beyond negligible.
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html? article=45988
Because it points out his address.