Global Warming Farce

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...


He understands very little, but pontificates upon much!
 
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!
 
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.

robinson.gif


The data doesn't lie. Global Warming isn't happening.
 
He doesn't understand the hydrologic cycle.
http://www.fwee.org/hlogic.html

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???

http://www.fwee.org/FI/Hydrocycle.gif
 
Dixie said:
He doesn't understand the hydrologic cycle.
http://www.fwee.org/hlogic.html

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???

http://www.fwee.org/FI/Hydrocycle.gif
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...


Are you really going to hang your hat on this crap?
 
Dixie said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
"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.
 
Watermark said:
"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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
 
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Watermark said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Watermark said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
if we had cars that ran on oxygen...what does Dixie think would happen to the oxygen atoms? would they disappear?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top