PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming Farce



Dixie - In Memoriam
07-26-2006, 06:51 AM
Okay, I know I will catch some heat for this, but hey... what's new? right?

I don't believe that man is causing the current warming cycle. I realize there is all kinds of scientific evidence to suggest this, but there is also evidence that is largely ignored. For instance, the emission of so-called 'greenhouse gasses' was going on to a much greater degree between 1940 and 1970, yet during this period, the same scientists who say we are overheating the planet now, were talking about how we were heading for the next Ice Age back then. Some will try to present the argument, that we have just had the warmest year on record, but they fail to mention the long period of time before accurate records were kept, where it was just as warm. The medieval warming period was far worse. The truth is, the Earth goes through warming and cooling cycles, and it always has.

Another thing that disturbs me, is how some people think the answer to all our problems lies in alternative fuels. I have often supported research into alt fuels, and I think it is a good idea to help us become less dependent on foreign oil, but I don't fool myself into thinking there is some miracle fuel that will "save the planet" if we can just get everyone on board. Every alternative has some disadvantage, and it's a fact we should just accept.

Take the Hydrogen Car... Seems like a great and wonderful solution on paper... A car that runs on manufactured hydrogen, and emits H2O. Great, right? No more harmful pollution! But has anyone thought about the ramifications of 20-30-50 years of pumping H2O into the atmosphere? In a century, will people be debating the impending crisis of turning our planet into an aquarium? Will there be widespread flooding because of this? If every vehicle on the planet is producing water that wasn't being produced before, what do you think is going to happen? Sure, it evaporates, but where does it go? ...That's right... we don't get rid of it.

The solution to the problems lie in people changing behaviors. Unfortunately, we will never do that until it's too late.

Care4all
07-26-2006, 07:21 AM
we went over this already on the "other" site....

Global warming, in short, can cause an eventual ice age to certain regions....

but regardless, the only way to believe this bull that global warming is not excellerated by us is to just IGNORE the science before you and common sense for that matter... :D

care

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-26-2006, 08:35 AM
we went over this already on the "other" site....

Global warming, in short, can cause an eventual ice age to certain regions....

but regardless, the only way to believe this bull that global warming is not excellerated by us is to just IGNORE the science before you and common sense for that matter... :D

care

What "other" site? ...Oh, you mean The Kingdom of SiR? How's life going in the Dictatorship?

Yes, I understand what the pinheads say about Global Warming, ironically, causing an Ice Age. There was no talk of Global Warming in the 1950's and 60's, when we were dumping billions of cubic tons of pollution into our atmosphere, only talk of an impending Ice Age that we had no control over, and were destined to see in the future. During the much hotter medieval warming cycle, there were no cars or fossil fuels being burned. Mankind was not even around during the original Ice Age, so they simply couldn't have caused it to happen. And there was nothing man was doing in the late 1700's, when we experienced the mini-ice age, or the year without a summer.

Simply put, all the Global Warming talk is a bunch of hooey, perpetrated by pinhead scientists who think they are always right. If mankind is doing something to alter the climate of the planet, it's not going to matter anyway, because we absolutely refuse to change our behavior.

Cypress
07-26-2006, 09:10 AM
yet during this period, the same scientists who say we are overheating the planet now, were talking about how we were heading for the next Ice Age back then.

Already covered ad naseum on FP.com

1) There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s. There is now.
2) We have 40 years of data and studies since the 1970s. Better data, more of it, and better science.
3) Global warming could affect ocean currents, causing severe cooling in localized places on the planet.

Damocles
07-26-2006, 09:16 AM
Simply put, all the Global Warming talk is a bunch of hooey, perpetrated by pinhead scientists who think they are always right. If mankind is doing something to alter the climate of the planet, it's not going to matter anyway, because we absolutely refuse to change our behavior.

You are a christian right?

Ergo, Even if it is "hooey" God gave mankind dominion over the world, not carte blanche... Dominion denotes responsibility towards as well as leadership over. It is not responsible to pollute, etc.. At least take your responsibility seriously and take as good of care over the part you walk on/drive on/live in/swim in/... you get the drift.... as you possibly can.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-26-2006, 09:18 AM
yet during this period, the same scientists who say we are overheating the planet now, were talking about how we were heading for the next Ice Age back then.

Already covered ad naseum on FP.com

1) There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s. There is now.
2) We have 40 years of data and studies since the 1970s. Better data, more of it, and better science.
3) Global warming could affect ocean currents, causing severe cooling in localized places on the planet.


1. There is no scientific consensus on anything except that the planet is getting warmer. There are various theories on why that is.

2. We have 40 years of data from before 1970 which shows much greater emissions of 'greenhouse gas' with the relative same amount or less warming of the planet.

3. No shit, Sherlock?

maineman
07-26-2006, 09:20 AM
3) Global warming could affect ocean currents, causing severe cooling in localized places on the planet.

even to the point of causing an ICE AGE!

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-26-2006, 09:23 AM
It is not responsible to pollute, etc.. At least take your responsibility seriously and take as good of care over the part you walk on/drive on/live in/swim in/... you get the drift.... as you possibly can.

I agree completely. I am all for doing whatever we can to live cleaner lives and not pollute the planet, I just don't buy into the whole 'global warming is caused by man' thing. I think it's cyclical, and nothing we are doing is causing what is happening to our climate, or will prevent things from happening in the future. This place has been here for billions of years, and it's gone through quite a few cycles of warming and cooling, and I don't think humans have had a thing to do with it... even WITH our newfangled science that is so much better today.

Cypress
07-26-2006, 09:24 AM
even to the point of causing an ICE AGE!

Its basic physics.

Ocean currents are simply heat-tranference mechanisms.

Some scientists believe that global warming could shut down the gulf stream. the gulf stream is what keeps the tempertures in northwestern europe and easter north america temperate.

Recall, that Scotland is at the same latitude as Siberia.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-26-2006, 09:28 AM
Its basic physics.

Ocean currents are simply heat-tranference mechanisms.

Some scientists believe that global warming could shut down the gulf stream. the gulf stream is what keeps the tempertures in northwestern europe and easter north america temperate.

Recall, that Scotland is at the same latitude as Siberia.

Let's be clear, I am not disputing that this might be possible, I am disputing the myth that humans are the cause of it. I think it's a natural cycle of the Earth, and there ain't a whole helluva lot we can do about it, one way or the other.

maineman
07-26-2006, 09:35 AM
the point being...Dixie makes all sorts of noise about scientists previously predicting an ice age and now predicting global warming as if those two events are mutually exclusive. He is a moron even if he is ignoring me ;)

Cypress
07-26-2006, 09:40 AM
the point being...Dixie makes all sorts of noise about scientists previously predicting an ice age and now predicting global warming as if those two events are mutually exclusive. He is a moron even if he is ignoring me ;)


No, localized regional cooling, is theoretically not mutually exclusive with global warming.

And the alleged "ice age" hypothsis of the 1970s, was just that - a hypothesis speculated at by some scientists. Its not comparable to a broadly held global consesus based on 40 years of study and data, like global warming today.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-26-2006, 09:47 AM
Its not comparable to a broadly held global consesus based on 40 years of study and data, like global warming today.

Repeat: We have 40 years of data from before 1970 which shows much greater emissions of 'greenhouse gas' with the relative same amount or less warming of the planet.

Cypress
07-26-2006, 10:32 AM
I'm not going to waste my time debating science with a scientifically-illiterate theocrat.

Dixie, your crediblity in debating science is nil. You have previously expressed the opinion that evolutionary processes cannot possibly result in the propagation of entirely new species of animals.

That says it all. You have no credibility on any thread dealing with science.

LadyT
07-26-2006, 10:44 AM
I'm not going to waste my time debating science with a scientifically-illiterate theocrat.

Dixie, your crediblity in debating science is nil. You have previously expressed the opinion that evolutionary processes cannot possibly result in the propagation of entirely new species of animals.

That says it all. You have no credibility on any thread dealing with science.

Unless you consider creationism science :cof1:

Jarod
07-26-2006, 11:00 AM
So dixie, you just randomly make claimes without any cites and expect us to trust you?

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-26-2006, 11:48 AM
So dixie, you just randomly make claimes without any cites and expect us to trust you?

I figured you had enough common sense to realize, before the 1972 Clean Air Act, and all the environmental concerns, from the start of the Industrial Revolution, our emissions of pollution were much higher than they've been the past 40 years. I don't think I need any "claimes" or "cites" to back that up, it's pretty elementary, isn't it? If you want to look up the info on the medieval warming period, be my guest. It was a cycle, just like the mini-ice age in the late 1700's. We had an entire year, where the average temps were considerably lower than any we've ever known. It is believed to have been caused by a volcanic eruption, and it took about 30 years for the planet to recover fully. Shit happens! The Earth goes through cycles of warming because of solar flares, and periods of cooling because of catastrophic natural events. Man has little or no effect on this, and if we did, we would have already destroyed the planet years ago.

There is nothing "theocratic" about my viewpoint on this, that is a strawman thrown out by someone who can't find a way to dispute what I have said. If you want my "theocratic" take on it, the World will end when God wants it to, and there ain't much you pinheads can do to stop it. That might be tomorrow, it might be in 50 million years, no one knows.

maineman
07-26-2006, 11:57 AM
vehicle miles travelled have tripled in America since the passage of the clean air act.... regardless of the marginal increases in fuel efficiencies, the vehicle caused pollution in America has skyrocketed.... and throughout the world, automotive use and oil consumption has skyrocketed as well.... as always, Dixie does not comprehend the larger issues... and over-simplifies to fit his simple brain.

Jarod
07-26-2006, 12:01 PM
I figured you had enough common sense to realize, before the 1972 Clean Air Act, and all the environmental concerns, from the start of the Industrial Revolution, our emissions of pollution were much higher than they've been the past 40 years. I don't think I need any "claimes" or "cites" to back that up, it's pretty elementary, isn't it? If you want to look up the info on the medieval warming period, be my guest. It was a cycle, just like the mini-ice age in the late 1700's. We had an entire year, where the average temps were considerably lower than any we've ever known. It is believed to have been caused by a volcanic eruption, and it took about 30 years for the planet to recover fully. Shit happens! The Earth goes through cycles of warming because of solar flares, and periods of cooling because of catastrophic natural events. Man has little or no effect on this, and if we did, we would have already destroyed the planet years ago.

There is nothing "theocratic" about my viewpoint on this, that is a strawman thrown out by someone who can't find a way to dispute what I have said. If you want my "theocratic" take on it, the World will end when God wants it to, and there ain't much you pinheads can do to stop it. That might be tomorrow, it might be in 50 million years, no one knows.


When you say "our pollution" are you meaning the US or the world... B/C I belive world pollution to be worse than ever over the past 40 years... not better then previously.

OrnotBitwise
07-26-2006, 12:21 PM
When you say "our pollution" are you meaning the US or the world... B/C I belive world pollution to be worse than ever over the past 40 years... not better then previously.
Absolutely, especially now that the economies of China and India are really heating up. We ain't seen nothin' yet.

Cypress
07-26-2006, 12:28 PM
Dixie,

On FP.com you clearly and directly contradicted the scientific consensus about evolutionary biology. You went on to "invent" your own interpretation of how evolution works - directly contradicting scientific consensus.

Nothing you say about real science can be believed. You're scientifically-illiterate.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-26-2006, 12:31 PM
When you say "our pollution" are you meaning the US or the world... B/C I belive world pollution to be worse than ever over the past 40 years... not better then previously.

Then what good was all the environmentalist bullshit? I think you are foolish if you really think we are producing more pollution now than we were in 1969. I think I read that we had cut it by something like 90% since then. It's certainly less than it was when factories churned it out with no regulation. But why don't you post us a "cite" or "claime" to back yourself up, if you really think this is so?

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-26-2006, 12:32 PM
Dixie,

On FP.com you clearly and directly contradicted the scientific consensus about evolutionary biology. You went on to "invent" your own interpretation of how evolution works - directly contradicting scientific consensus.

Nothing you say about real science can be believed. You're scientifically-illiterate.

It's okay Prissy, if you can't stay on topic, I understand. Really!

Beefy
07-26-2006, 12:33 PM
When you say "our pollution" are you meaning the US or the world... B/C I belive world pollution to be worse than ever over the past 40 years... not better then previously.

Then what good was all the environmentalist bullshit? I think you are foolish if you really think we are producing more pollution now than we were in 1969. I think I read that we had cut it by something like 90% since then. It's certainly less than it was when factories churned it out with no regulation. But why don't you post us a "cite" or "claime" to back yourself up, if you really think this is so?


I believe worldwide, pollution is far greater today than 1969. Worldwide.

Cypress
07-26-2006, 12:41 PM
Then what good was all the environmentalist bullshit? I think you are foolish if you really think we are producing more pollution now than we were in 1969. I think I read that we had cut it by something like 90% since then.

You scientifically-illiterate, evolution-hating dumbass.

Carbon dixoxide has never been regulatated.

We DID regulate other pollutants like pesticides, VOCs, and petrochemicals since the 1960s. NOT greenhouse gases like CO2.

Jarod
07-26-2006, 12:49 PM
When you say "our pollution" are you meaning the US or the world... B/C I belive world pollution to be worse than ever over the past 40 years... not better then previously.

Then what good was all the environmentalist bullshit? I think you are foolish if you really think we are producing more pollution now than we were in 1969. I think I read that we had cut it by something like 90% since then. It's certainly less than it was when factories churned it out with no regulation. But why don't you post us a "cite" or "claime" to back yourself up, if you really think this is so?


If you belive that you are an idiot.

maineman
07-26-2006, 12:52 PM
like I said...vehicle miles driven IN AMERICA have tripled since 1970. Pollution worldwide is worse and getting moreso.

Cypress
07-26-2006, 12:56 PM
If you belive that you are an idiot.

Dixie's incapable of distinguishing between different kinds of environmental pollution.

Yes, we cleaned lead and sulfur out of gasoline. They are regulated. There are some improvements in air quality and acid rain because of it.

Carbon dioxide emissions have never been regulated.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-26-2006, 01:56 PM
Dixie's incapable of distinguishing between different kinds of environmental pollution.

Yes, we cleaned lead and sulfur out of gasoline. They are regulated. There are some improvements in air quality and acid rain because of it.

Carbon dioxide emissions have never been regulated.


http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm

The myth of "global warming" starts with an accurate observation: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. It is now about 360 parts per million, vs. 290 at the beginning of the 20th century, Reasonable estimates indicate that it may eventually rise as high as 600 parts per million. This rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil and natural gas, although this is not certain. Earth's oceans and land hold some 50 times as much carbon dioxide as is in the atmosphere, and movement between these reservoirs of carbon dioxide is poorly understood. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide does correspond with the time of human release and equals about half of the amount released.

Carbon dioxide, water, and a few other substances are "greenhouse gases." For reasons predictable from their physics and chemistry, they tend to admit more solar energy into the atmosphere than they allow to escape. Actually, things are not so simple as this, since these substances interact among themselves and with other aspects of the atmosphere in complex ways that are not well understood. Still, it was reasonable to hypothesize that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels might cause atmospheric temperatures to rise. Some people predicted "global warming," which has come to mean extreme greenhouse warming of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences.

Careful Tests

The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.

The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.


Why are temperatures rising? The first chart nearby shows temperatures during the past 250 years, relative to the mean temperature for 1951-70. The same chart shows the length of the solar magnetic cycle during the same period. Close correlation between these two parameters--the shorter the solar cycle (and hence the more active the sun), the higher the temperature--demonstrates, as do other studies, that the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age and the large fluctuations during that warming have been caused by changes in solar activity.

The highest temperatures during this period occurred in about 1940. During the past 20 years, atmospheric temperatures have actually tended to go down, as shown in the second chart, based on very reliable satellite data, which have been confirmed by measurements from weather balloons.

Consider what this means for the global-warming hypothesis. This hypothesis predicts that global temperatures will rise significantly, indeed catastrophically, if atmospheric carbon dioxide rises. Most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has occurred during the past 50 years, and the increase has continued during the past 20 years. Yet there has been no significant increase in atmospheric temperature during those 50 years, and during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, temperatures have decreased.

In science, the ultimate test is the process of experiment. If a hypothesis fails the experimental test, it must be discarded. Therefore, the scientific method requires that the global warming hypothesis be rejected.

Jarod
07-26-2006, 02:02 PM
Dixie, are greenhouse gasses more or less prevelant today versus 40 years ago. You are claiming both?

OrnotBitwise
07-26-2006, 02:16 PM
I believe worldwide, pollution is far greater today than 1969. Worldwide.
Which is what counts, since the ecosystem can't really be effectively segmented or partitioned. Pollution doesn't stop at purely political borders.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-26-2006, 03:50 PM
Dixie, are greenhouse gasses more or less prevelant today versus 40 years ago. You are claiming both?

Doesn't matter. Didn't you read? Greenhouse gasses are not responsible for change in atmospheric temps. They are also uncertain how carbon dioxide gets into the atmosphere, only about 50% of it is attributable to man, if their theories are correct.

Immanuel
07-26-2006, 03:56 PM
In some respects I disagree with Dixie. I think man is having an effect on global warming. I think that our "progress" has effected the natural balance of this world. What I am not so sure of is that it is as drastic of an effect as some alarmist want us all to believe. I do agree that the natural climate is cyclical and believe it will continue to be.

I sure as heck am not going to bury my head in the sand over this an hope it will go away.

Immie

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-26-2006, 04:02 PM
Which is what counts, since the ecosystem can't really be effectively segmented or partitioned. Pollution doesn't stop at purely political borders.

I'm not so sure that all those years of burning coal and whale oil, no industrial regulation, etc., were "cleaner" than post-1972, when the 'ecology movement' came online. I mean, that was essentially what prompted such a movement, wasn't it?

Damocles
07-26-2006, 04:04 PM
I think it is moot regardless of whether you believe it or not. Morality will tell us (I gave a christian version earlier) that we have responsibility for the life around us. To not take it without good reason. Changing our environment, even in the most local circumstances, in a negative way works against that particular understanding.

In essence, what I am trying to say is that moral action dictates us to act in the same manner as those who do believe in our activity causing global warming, even if we don't.

BTW - I am one who does believe that our action causes changes to the global environment.

Immanuel
07-26-2006, 04:10 PM
I think it is moot regardless of whether you believe it or not. Morality will tell us (I gave a christian version earlier) that we have responsibility for the life around us. To not take it without good reason. Changing our environment, even in the most local circumstances, in a negative way works against that particular understanding.

In essence, what I am trying to say is that moral action dictates us to act in the same manner as those who do believe in our activity causing global warming, even if we don't.

BTW - I am one who does believe that our action causes changes to the global environment.

I do not disagree that we should do everything we can to protect the environment. That was not what I was trying to say.


"In essence, what I am trying to say is that moral action dictates us to act in the same manner as those who do believe in our activity causing global warming, even if we don't."

I agree with that statement in full.

Immie

klaatu
07-26-2006, 04:51 PM
Just because we discussed something in FP.com .. does not mean we cannot discuss it here .....

Dixie .. I fully understand what you are trying to say .. and I agree with you .. A) to attribute global warming soley to human activity is just as ignorent to say that global warming doesnt exist at all or better yet ... "it exists only because"

There is plenty of Archeological evidence that the earth has gone through these types of temperature shifts, along with other Scientific explanations such as the Sun delivering stronger rays, and yes a gargantuan asteroid that collided into the earth at the turn of the last century.. blasting an enormous amount of metallic dust into the atmosphere. The Tunguska Event, sometimes known as the Tungus Meteorite event released as much energy as fifteen one-megaton atomic bombs! The science journal documents this finding by a Russian Scientist. This is not junk science!

Again, the argument isnt against global warming, the argument is the why .....


There are several factors involved including cyclical activity and other phenoms as discussed in the following article....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm


Climate changes such as global warming may be due to changes in the sun rather than to the release of greenhouse gases on Earth.

Climatologists and astronomers speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Philadelphia say the present warming may be unusual - but a mini ice age could soon follow.

The sun provides all the energy that drives our climate, but it is not the constant star it might seem.

Careful studies over the last 20 years show that its overall brightness and energy output increases slightly as sunspot activity rises to the peak of its 11-year cycle.

And individual cycles can be more or less active.

The sun is currently at its most active for 300 years.

That, say scientists in Philadelphia, could be a more significant cause of global warming than the emissions of greenhouse gases that are most often blamed.

The researchers point out that much of the half-a-degree rise in global temperature over the last 120 years occurred before 1940 - earlier than the biggest rise in greenhouse gas emissions.



Ancient trees reveal most warm spells are caused by the sun
Using ancient tree rings, they show that 17 out of 19 warm spells in the last 10,000 years coincided with peaks in solar activity.

They have also studied other sun-like stars and found that they spend significant periods without sunspots at all, so perhaps cool spells should be feared more than global warming.

The scientists do not pretend they can explain everything, nor do they say that attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be abandoned. But they do feel that understanding of our nearest star must be increased if the climate is to be understood.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-26-2006, 05:26 PM
"Take the Hydrogen Car... Seems like a great and wonderful solution on paper... A car that runs on manufactured hydrogen, and emits H2O. Great, right? No more harmful pollution! But has anyone thought about the ramifications of 20-30-50 years of pumping H2O into the atmosphere? In a century, will people be debating the impending crisis of turning our planet into an aquarium? Will there be widespread flooding because of this? If every vehicle on the planet is producing water that wasn't being produced before, what do you think is going to happen? Sure, it evaporates, but where does it go? ...That's right... we don't get rid of it."

My fucking god Dixie. Are you retarded? Please tell me you didn't just say that.

It evaporates, and it rains back down. Just like any other water that evaporates. The main problem with hydrogen is it's efficiency factor... it takes more energy to make than gas. Mind you, all fuels will have a negative energy factor. We use them merely for convenience, so we won't have to spend 12 hours powering up our batteries for a fuel source. But Hydrogen's energy loss is a bit too great currently... and until we have power plants that don't use fossil fuels it really won't matter much (even though power plants are far more efficient than our car engines).

Ethanol and other gasses could work though. Ethanol doesn't burn clean, but it doesn't introduce any new carbon into the atmosphere, either, so it won't contribute to global warming.

Cypress
07-26-2006, 05:31 PM
Also covered ad naseum, klattu.

No scientist has ever claimed humand are "SOLELY" responsible for climate change. Please stop making that assertion.

The scientific consensus is that humans are contributing and accelerating global warming, by pouring tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every day.

Scientists have looked at whether natural causes can account for the rapid acceleration of warming, and concluded that by themselves, they can't. Humans are a significant source of the observed warming.

This is the scientific consensus. Deal with it. You cons were wrong for the last twenty years, when you said there was no global warming. Now, you're changing your story again, because you were wrong the first time.

At all the major scientific organizations who've looked at it in great detail - from IPCC, to Bush's own agencies: USEPA, National Science Foundation, to NOAA have made a judement on this: humans are contributing and accelerating global warming.

Cypress
07-26-2006, 05:35 PM
Dixie: Take the Hydrogen Car... Seems like a great and wonderful solution on paper... A car that runs on manufactured hydrogen, and emits H2O. Great, right? No more harmful pollution! But has anyone thought about the ramifications of 20-30-50 years of pumping H2O into the atmosphere? In a century, will people be debating the impending crisis of turning our planet into an aquarium? Will there be widespread flooding because of this? If every vehicle on the planet is producing water that wasn't being produced before, what do you think is going to happen? Sure, it evaporates, but where does it go? ...That's right... we don't get rid of it."

Watermark: My fucking god Dixie. Are you retarded? Please tell me you didn't just say that.

He doesn't understand the hydrologic cycle. Or evolution. Or climate science.

He is scientifically illiterate, and has no crediblity addressing any thread pertaining to science.

Jarod
07-26-2006, 08:01 PM
Dixie: Take the Hydrogen Car... Seems like a great and wonderful solution on paper... A car that runs on manufactured hydrogen, and emits H2O. Great, right? No more harmful pollution! But has anyone thought about the ramifications of 20-30-50 years of pumping H2O into the atmosphere? In a century, will people be debating the impending crisis of turning our planet into an aquarium? Will there be widespread flooding because of this? If every vehicle on the planet is producing water that wasn't being produced before, what do you think is going to happen? Sure, it evaporates, but where does it go? ...That's right... we don't get rid of it."

Watermark: My fucking god Dixie. Are you retarded? Please tell me you didn't just say that.

He doesn't understand the hydrologic cycle. Or evolution. Or climate science.

He is scientifically illiterate, and has no crediblity addressing any thread pertaining to science.


He understands very little, but pontificates upon much!

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-26-2006, 08:14 PM
My fucking god Dixie. Are you retarded? Please tell me you didn't just say that.

It evaporates, and it rains back down. Just like any other water that evaporates.

Well of course, it rains back down. So we now have the normal evaporating cycle taking place, with the normal amounts of water found naturally on Earth, plus the extra H2O produced by cars. Result: Increased rainfall... flooding... mudslides... desalination of the oceans... etc. Producing mass quantities of H2O and dumping it into our atmosphere over the course of 30-50 years, will be just as detrimental to the planet as pumping fluorocarbons into the atmosphere.

You don't think clouds have some sort of magical way to determine how much rain to deliver, or evaporation just stops happening when it reaches a certain limit, do you? I mean, come on guys, you can bash on my scientific knowledge all you like, but this is fairly basic stuff... the more water we make, the more water that will evaporate and rain down on us. Duh!

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-26-2006, 08:41 PM
The scientific consensus is that humans are contributing and accelerating global warming, by pouring tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every day.

No, that's not the consensus. Read the article I posted previously.

Scientists have looked at whether natural causes can account for the rapid acceleration of warming, and concluded that by themselves, they can't. Humans are a significant source of the observed warming.

I'm sorry but this is invalid scientific theory. You can't simply determine, because A doesn't equal C, then B must. The global warming theory was, that humans could be a significant source, but they are uncertain at this time, because the relevant fluxuation in atmospheric temps would seem to dispute this. The planet is composed of about 500% more carbon dioxide than what is found in the atmosphere, and they are uncertain of exactly how all the CO2 is introduced into the atmosphere.

Read again from the article posted:

Consider what this means for the global-warming hypothesis. This hypothesis predicts that global temperatures will rise significantly, indeed catastrophically, if atmospheric carbon dioxide rises. Most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has occurred during the past 50 years, and the increase has continued during the past 20 years. Yet there has been no significant increase in atmospheric temperature during those 50 years, and during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, temperatures have decreased.


This is the scientific consensus. Deal with it.

You are welcome to keep believing whatever you like, if it makes you feel better, Prissy.

http://www.junkscience.com/images/robinson.gif

The data doesn't lie. Global Warming isn't happening.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-26-2006, 08:53 PM
He doesn't understand the hydrologic cycle.
http://www.fwee.org/hlogic.html

http://www.fwee.org/FI/Hydrocycle.gif

If I am not mistaken, there is no provision in the Hydro-cycle for EXTRA water humans created as emission, from hydrogen. It seems to me, fairly logical to see how this might eventually present a problem for clouds trying to hold all the new water being generated, doesn't it?

Do any of you geniuses have an answer for how we plan to deal with an aquarium environment? Should we all invest in scuba gear? What???

Damocles
07-26-2006, 08:56 PM
He doesn't understand the hydrologic cycle.
http://www.fwee.org/hlogic.html

http://www.fwee.org/FI/Hydrocycle.gif

If I am not mistaken, there is no provision in the Hydro-cycle for EXTRA water humans created as emission, from hydrogen. It seems to me, fairly logical to see how this might eventually present a problem for clouds trying to hold all the new water being generated, doesn't it?

Do any of you geniuses have an answer for how we plan to deal with an aquarium environment? Should we all invest in scuba gear? What???



You use the water to make more Hydrogen to use in the automobile. This realeases Oxygen that you used up to make the water. It's a very nice cycle of its own.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-26-2006, 09:11 PM
You use the water to make more Hydrogen to use in the automobile. This realeases Oxygen that you used up to make the water. It's a very nice cycle of its own.

I understand you can't create or destroy matter, you can only change it. My point is, you are playing with Hydrogen and Oxygen balances in our atmosphere, and that in itself can be dangerous. You are also adding to the amount of water in our environment, through the process of creating energy, which means we will all die from Oxygen poisoning. (...Yeah, there IS such a thing.)

Hey, I admit, you will probably be able to find some threads where I have advocated Hydrogen-powered cars, and that might be a viable alternative under consideration, I am merely raising the point, there is always a consequence. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Producing massive quantities of H2O into our environment daily, might not be yield the best "reaction" for us. Unless we are good swimmers.

Beefy
07-26-2006, 09:24 PM
You use the water to make more Hydrogen to use in the automobile. This realeases Oxygen that you used up to make the water. It's a very nice cycle of its own.

I understand you can't create or destroy matter, you can only change it. My point is, you are playing with Hydrogen and Oxygen balances in our atmosphere, and that in itself can be dangerous. You are also adding to the amount of water in our environment, through the process of creating energy, which means we will all die from Oxygen poisoning. (...Yeah, there IS such a thing.)

Hey, I admit, you will probably be able to find some threads where I have advocated Hydrogen-powered cars, and that might be a viable alternative under consideration, I am merely raising the point, there is always a consequence. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Producing massive quantities of H2O into our environment daily, might not be yield the best "reaction" for us. Unless we are good swimmers.


Are you really going to hang your hat on this crap?

FUCK THE POLICE
07-26-2006, 11:02 PM
My fucking god Dixie. Are you retarded? Please tell me you didn't just say that.

It evaporates, and it rains back down. Just like any other water that evaporates.

Well of course, it rains back down. So we now have the normal evaporating cycle taking place, with the normal amounts of water found naturally on Earth, plus the extra H2O produced by cars. Result: Increased rainfall... flooding... mudslides... desalination of the oceans... etc. Producing mass quantities of H2O and dumping it into our atmosphere over the course of 30-50 years, will be just as detrimental to the planet as pumping fluorocarbons into the atmosphere.

You don't think clouds have some sort of magical way to determine how much rain to deliver, or evaporation just stops happening when it reaches a certain limit, do you? I mean, come on guys, you can bash on my scientific knowledge all you like, but this is fairly basic stuff... the more water we make, the more water that will evaporate and rain down on us. Duh!

Dixie? You know how they get hydrogen? Do you think they just pull it out of their ass or something?

They get hydrogen by seperating water. Whenever the fuel cells are used, it joins oxygen in the atmosphere back up with the hydrogen in their tank to reform water again. There is no net gain.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-26-2006, 11:03 PM
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Do you even know where that quote came from and what it means in physics? Because how you inserted into your argument made no sense.

Beefy
07-26-2006, 11:11 PM
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Do you even know where that quote came from and what it means in physics? Because how you inserted into your argument made no sense.

It counterfits the argument in this case. The reaction, that is equal and opposite is that which nullifies any discrepancy. Its a ridiculous analogy. It would be like saying if we took a bunch of CO2 out of the air, made feul of the oxygen and the biproduct was CO2, we'd all then die because there'd be too much CO2.


Circular crap.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-26-2006, 11:13 PM
Dixie...

Cars don't cause global warming because they emit carbon dioxide. They cause global warming because they emit carbon dioxide that has been buried underground for 100 million years (which the current enviroment hasn't evolved to handle). Carbon dioxide can be put out from cars and not cause global warming if it came from, for instance, plants, because the plants had already taken in a nearly equivalent amount of carbon dioxide to suffice for the amount you're emmiting.

Just because the cars will spew water doesn't mean more water will be made. If they dug the hydrogen out of the sun and used it to make more water, then yes, it would result in more water being made, although I'm not sure it would ever cause flooding. But they draw this hydrogen by splitting water into Oxygen and Hydrogen. The Oxygen floats off into the atmosphere and the Hydrogen is stored in a bottle. Whenever someone uses a hydrogen engine they recombine an equivalent amount of Oxygen out of the atmosphere again with the hydrogen stored in the tank. It's the exact same amount of water coming out.

It's not so much what is emitted as it is the source...

klaatu
07-27-2006, 05:23 AM
Also covered ad naseum, klattu.

No scientist has ever claimed humand are "SOLELY" responsible for climate change. Please stop making that assertion.

The scientific consensus is that humans are contributing and accelerating global warming, by pouring tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every day.

Scientists have looked at whether natural causes can account for the rapid acceleration of warming, and concluded that by themselves, they can't. Humans are a significant source of the observed warming.

This is the scientific consensus. Deal with it. You cons were wrong for the last twenty years, when you said there was no global warming. Now, you're changing your story again, because you were wrong the first time.

At all the major scientific organizations who've looked at it in great detail - from IPCC, to Bush's own agencies: USEPA, National Science Foundation, to NOAA have made a judement on this: humans are contributing and accelerating global warming.


I know what the consensus is. Where did I say that global warming isnt happening? See your problem is that you are stuck on politizing everything! Which means that you are stuck on stupid. Use it to your poitical advantage.. right Cypress?

Everytime you have posted on this subject you have made the assertion that Humans activity IS the cause. I am hear to dispute that and tell you that no.. human activity may be a part of it, and probably a small part, but it is not the major reason. Should we do better and lesson the amount of C02's we throw into the atmosphere? Of course! But get your head out of your ass and realize that there are much stronger forces in the works than driving around cars.

What you need to deal with.. is that we arent as bad as you would like to believe. But of course.. when a Democrat returns to the White House ..Cypress and Company will be silent about Global Warming.

Here is another report from UM


Evidence for sun-climate link reported by UMaine scientists

University of Maine
December 22, 2004



A team led by University of Maine scientists has reported finding a potential link between changes in solar activity and the Earth's climate. In a paper due to be published in an upcoming volume of the Annals of Glaciology, Paul Mayewski, director of UMaine's Climate Change Institute, and 11 colleagues from China, Australia and UMaine describe evidence from ice cores pointing to an association between the waxing and waning of zonal wind strength around Antarctica and a chemical signal of changes in the sun's output.


At the heart of the paper, Solar Forcing of the Polar Atmosphere, are calcium, nitrate and sodium data from ice cores collected in four Antarctic locations and comparisons of those data to South Pole ice core isotope data for beryllium-10, an indicator of solar activity. The authors also point to data from Greenland and the Canadian Yukon that suggest similar relationships between solar activity and the atmosphere in the northern hemisphere. They focus on years since 1400 when the Earth entered a roughly 500-year period known as the Little Ice Age.


The researchers' goal is to understand what drives the Earth's climate system without taking increases in greenhouse gases into account, says Mayewski. "There are good reasons to be concerned about greenhouse gases, but we should be looking at the climate system with our eyes open," he adds. Understanding how the system operates in the absence of human impacts is important for responding to climate changes that might occur in the future.


Mayewski founded the International Transantarctic Scientific Expedition (ITASE) and is the co-author of The Ice Chronicles: The Quest to Understand Global Climate Change, published in 2002 with Frank White. The United States' ITASE office is located at UMaine. Antarctic locations used in the paper include: Law Dome, a 4,576-foot high ice mound located about 68 miles from the coast facing the Indian Ocean and the site of an Australian research station; Siple Dome, a 2,000-foot high ice covered mound located between two ice streams that flow out of the Transantarctic Mountains into the Ross ice shelf, and the site of a U.S. research station; and two ITASE field sites west of Siple Dome where ice cores were collected during field surveys in 2000 and 2001.


The authors are Mayewski, Kirk A. Maasch, Eric Meyerson, Sharon Sneed, Susan Kaspari, Daniel Dixon, and Erich Osterberg, all from UMaine; Yping Yan of the China Meterological Association; Shichang Kang of UMaine and the Chinese Academy of Sciences; and Vin Morgan, Tas van Ommen and Mark Curran of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC in Tasmania.


Since at least the 1840s when sunspot cycles were discovered, scientists have proposed that solar variability could affect the climate, but direct evidence of that relationship and understanding of a mechanism have been lacking.


The ice core data show, the authors write, that when solar radiation increases, more calcium is deposited at Siple Dome and at one of the ITASE field sites. The additional calcium may reflect an increase in wind strength in mid-latitude regions around Antarctica, they add, especially over the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Calcium in West Antarctic ice cores is thought to derive mainly from dust in Australia, Africa and South America and from sea salt in the southern ocean.


That finding, they note, is consistent with other research suggesting that the sun may affect the strength of those mid-latitude winds through changes in stratospheric ozone over Antarctica.


The authors also refer to sodium data from Siple Dome ice cores that have been reported by Karl Kreutz, director of UMaine's stable isotope laboratory. Changes in sodium appear to be associated with air pressure changes over the South Pacific.


Ice core data from Law Dome focus on changes in nitrate and may reflect changing wind patterns over Antarctica. The wind currents that bring nitrate to the continent, however, are less well known than those that carry sodium and calcium.


Researchers in the UMaine Climate Change Institute (http://www.climatechange.umaine.edu/) have focused on the relationship between solar variability and climate, particularly the use of isotopes in tree rings and ice cores to provide an indication of the sun's strength. The ice core data reported in the paper demonstrates a direct atmospheric consequence associated with changing solar radiation.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-27-2006, 11:14 AM
Dixie? You know how they get hydrogen? Do you think they just pull it out of their ass or something?

They get hydrogen by seperating water. Whenever the fuel cells are used, it joins oxygen in the atmosphere back up with the hydrogen in their tank to reform water again. There is no net gain.

I believe this is incorrect, because you can't produce energy without a fuel source being expended. It's impossible to seperate hydrogen from water, then burn the hydrogen and produce the hydrogen and oxygen mixture to form water, and all elements remain equally balanced in the end, with energy being produced. I think it basically defies all laws of physics for this to happen.

maineman
07-27-2006, 12:01 PM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030206-2.html

"Hydrogen can be produced from abundant domestic resources including natural gas, coal, biomass, and even water."

Cypress
07-27-2006, 12:08 PM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030206-2.html

"Hydrogen can be produced from abundant domestic resources including natural gas, coal, biomass, and even water."


I thought this was common knowledge to well informed people?

maineman
07-27-2006, 12:26 PM
you'd think that Dixie would have the whitehouse press releases memorized!

FUCK THE POLICE
07-27-2006, 12:27 PM
I believe this is incorrect, because you can't produce energy without a fuel source being expended. It's impossible to seperate hydrogen from water, then burn the hydrogen and produce the hydrogen and oxygen mixture to form water, and all elements remain equally balanced in the end, with energy being produced. I think it basically defies all laws of physics for this to happen.

That's a misconception... nothing is ever "lost" in an energy cycle. Otherwise the universe would've dissapeared a long time ago. Some of it may become heat or something you don't want, but it all comes out equal in the end. All we're doing is temporary manipulating the matter to put it in another direction... if we convert most of it back to the form it originally was there's no problem. I do see problems with the whole energy cycle of hydrogen, as some of the matter will be released as heat and won't come back, but this happens all the time anyway. It will take a very long time for the small heat loss ot undo things, and by that time we'll probably have the technology to make more water from other sources, or even interstellar sources, anyway.

OrnotBitwise
07-27-2006, 01:02 PM
That's a misconception... nothing is ever "lost" in an energy cycle. Otherwise the universe would've dissapeared a long time ago. Some of it may become heat or something you don't want, but it all comes out equal in the end. All we're doing is temporary manipulating the matter to put it in another direction... if we convert most of it back to the form it originally was there's no problem. I do see problems with the whole energy cycle of hydrogen, as some of the matter will be released as heat and won't come back, but this happens all the time anyway. It will take a very long time for the small heat loss ot undo things, and by that time we'll probably have the technology to make more water from other sources, or even interstellar sources, anyway.
You're both right (and wrong).

Mass and energy are conserved. None can ever be lost, in the absolute sense. They only change form. OTOH, entropy can only increase over a closed system, never decrease. In practical terms, this means that the total amount of useful energy available for doing work -- fuel, as Dixie correctly observed -- in the entire universe will constantly decrease.

Then again, that's over the universe as a whole. There's nothing that says entropy can't decrease locally.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-27-2006, 04:55 PM
Look, you guys are making a legitimate argument about mass and the physics of the universe, and I completely understand where you are coming from, but I think you are missing my point. I am not saying that we run the risk of using up all the hydrogen in the universe, it is the most common element in the universe, so that would be impossible. It is the balance of elements that is in play. Watermark is close to understanding what I am saying, if we are converting water to hydrogen, we are releasing oxygen in doing so, and in converting the hydrogen into water by creating energy, we are generating more water in our environment. It's not that we have any more hydrogen or oxygen molecules in the end, it is the displacement of them, and how they are balanced within our environment that I am discussing here.

I do see problems with the whole energy cycle of hydrogen, as some of the matter will be released as heat and won't come back, but this happens all the time anyway.

What happens all the time? We run millions of cars a day on hydrogen and produce millions of cubic tons of extra water each day? No, this is not currently happening, it is what some propose, and my argument is, there are always consequences. We could be talking about an engine that runs on AIR, it uses the Oxygen for fuel and emits Nitrogen. Sounds like a great thing, our atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen, and Air is free... but the eventual consequence is, we would have an environment of pure Nitrogen, and humans can't live by breathing pure Nitrogen.

I am not trying to say that Hydrogen powered cars are impossible, or that it wouldn't be a reasonable alternative to fossil fuels, just that, regardless of what we humans consume as energy, there will be a consequence. It simply can't be avoided.

maineman
07-27-2006, 06:58 PM
if we had cars that ran on oxygen...what does Dixie think would happen to the oxygen atoms? would they disappear?

KingCondanomation
03-22-2010, 02:52 PM
if we had cars that ran on oxygen...what does Dixie think would happen to the oxygen atoms? would they disappear?
You overcame the ban!

Damocles
03-22-2010, 02:53 PM
You overcame the ban!
LOL. That post was from 2006...

KingCondanomation
03-22-2010, 02:55 PM
LOL. That post was from 2006...

Did I get you...for even a little bit?

Damocles
03-22-2010, 02:58 PM
Did I get you...for even a little bit?
Yes, just before I clicked the link to the original post.

Minister of Truth
03-22-2010, 05:38 PM
Everyone's a comedian today. But humor is healthy, so its ironically timely.