SkyChimp 0 #26 February 5, 2007 I have a question for you, has it be proven that a Tsunami is caused by life on this planet? Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #27 February 5, 2007 QuoteI have a question for you, has it be proven that a Tsunami is caused by life on this planet? We have a serious failure of logical reasoning here. I'm completely stumped. Is there any way to advance a conversation under these circumstances? First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #28 February 5, 2007 QuoteI have a question for you, has it be proven that a Tsunami is caused by life on this planet? Why don't you read the thread title before asking silly questions.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #29 February 5, 2007 You're right... let's move on with the thread. Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #30 February 5, 2007 QuoteQuote So you can see, water vapor accumulation is not a particular concern. What's the trend in average water vapor in the earth's atmosphere? Anybody know? There is a variable there that most folks haven't addressed so far in this thread. The warmer it gets, the more water vapor the air can hold. If, globally, the temperature has increased about 1°C, then we should assume that the water vapor carrying capacity has increased a bit as well. I don't have the ratios right off the top of my head.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,487 #31 February 5, 2007 >Well the byproduct of a Hydrogen burning vehicle is water vapor. >Would this be kinda countering the effect were hoping for. In the way you mean - no. Take a look at a globe; the oceans make up most of the planet. 4.8×10^14 tons water evaporate from the oceans every year. That's 4,800,000,000,000,000 tons of water a year. We could turn every car, appliance, factory and airplane on the planet into a hydrogen-burner and it wouldn't make a dent in that number. >I'm assuming there are other factors and this argument really only >applies to the use of hydrogen as fuel. This seems to make sense to the >common guy if the greenie's plan is to actually push for hydrogen as a >main source of fuel. The big problem with hydrogen is simply that we don't have any. We can make it from fossil fuels - but we're running out of them. We can make it from electricity and water - but we don't have a whole lot of extra electricity, and right now we make most of it from coal, which is even worse then oil when it comes to CO2 releases. The _only_ way hydrogen currently makes sense is if we make it via high temperature dissociation of water in HTGR nuclear reactors. We don't have any of those yet. Until we do, hydrogen as a fuel will just be a cool science project, not a solution for our energy problems. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,487 #32 February 5, 2007 >there simply isn't nearly enough platinum produced each year . . . That's not the problem. Heck, most cars in america have a platinum-coated catalytic converter. THe problem is that we don't have any hydrogen. Biodiesel is a pretty good alternative. Ethanol would be too if we could get a cellulose-based conversion system working. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,487 #33 February 5, 2007 >He stated in his article that the last Mount Saint Helen eruption caused >1400 times more carcinogens then the world's automotive pollution figures. I think you may be confusing carcinogens with CO2 releases. They're not the same thing. As an example, particulate pollution from coal fired power plants is a carcinogen. But even if you had the cleanest coal power plant in the world, with every tiny particulate removed, you'd still have the CO2. In the case of that volcano, it's currently pumping out a lot of sulfur dioxide, about as much as all the factories and power plants in Washington combined. Sulfur dioxide causes acid rain and contributes to haze, and it's getting more and more regulated as time goes on. In terms of CO2 production, it would take seven Mount St Helens explosions every year to equal the amount of CO2 we are producing. >He states, we as a human race seem to forget that our planet is the >most ever changing geological planet known to man. You mean, as compared to, say, the planets of 51 Pegasi? Our planet is the ONLY planet where we have studied the climate and geology to any degree at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,487 #34 February 5, 2007 >If you are insinuating that because earth is the only planet with human > life and that all geological changes are caused by "life" itself . . . A great many are. Coal, oil, shale and limestone all came about because of life processes. This planet would be unrecognizable if green algae had not come along and turned our carbon dioxide/nitrogen/methane atmosphere into one that had oxygen in it. >My opinion is that I don't believe that mass temperature changes, >volcanic eruptions, or Tsunamis are caused by living creatures. Volcanic eruptions - agreed. Tsunamis - since they are affected by sea depth, I'd say there was an indirect effect. Temperature changes - we know now that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and most people now believe that the change in CO2 levels we see from .028% to .040% is having an effect on planetary temperatures. If we never had life on this planet, we'd still have an atmosphere that was over 50% CO2. Do you really think that changing the CO2 concentration by a factor of 1000 would have no effect? When green algae came into being, it radically changed the atmosphere (and eventually the geology) of this planet. Even today it supplies most of our oxygen. It has a huge effect on our climate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chrismgtis 0 #35 February 6, 2007 I don't believe the issue is that we create "global warming". If the Earth is warming, it is most likely a natural cycle. Scientists aren't nearly as smart as we give them credit for. Why? Well one reason is they rely to much on what they believe are "facts", but are nothing more than theories and guesses. They use this "data" to make claims. They never use common sense. If we do in fact have some impact on the Earth's climate, it is very small and almost insignificant. We believe we know so much about the Earth, but we don't. We have not had an intelligent society for very long (and I use the word intelligent very loosely, because whether or not we are intelligent is very debatable). I don't really care what methods scientists have for coming up with data that is thousands, millions and billions of years old. They have no idea what the Earth was doing a million years ago. That is more of a fact than anything they've come up with.Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033 Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #36 February 6, 2007 You might find this article interesting. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0 Of course, I'll get to hear that the author is in the pay of exxon mobile, the ten scientists in the articles "the series" are either "crackpot", "discredited" or have some "agenda". But I found it interesting nonetheless. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,487 #37 February 6, 2007 >Well one reason is they rely to much on what they believe are "facts", but >are nothing more than theories and guesses. They use this "data" to >make claims. They never use common sense. Hmm. Is it common sense that making the front of an airplane blunt instead of pointy makes more aerodynamic? Is it common sense that light can sometimes be a particle and sometimes a wave? Is it common sense that a gram of dirt can have more energy than a year's worth of household electricity? Is it common sense that electrons don't orbit a nucleus, but exist in non-specific electron clouds? Common sense usually works when you're trying to cook dinner. It often doesn't work with science. A scientist (or indeed anyone) who uses common sense instead of taking a scientific approach to science/engineering would be better off as a chef than a scientist or engineer, because they will never understand the underpinnings of science using that sort of reasoning. "That cat HAS to be dead or alive; it just doesn't make any sense that it can be both!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #38 February 6, 2007 QuoteCommon sense usually works when you're trying to cook dinner. I beg to differ! Is it common sense that aesofetida which smells horrible is so important in making indian food delicious? Or sulfurous black salt in persian? Is it common sense that berries and vanilla are such a perfect foil for grilled salmon? Or that oysters, goose liver, and buried underground fungus are the most sought-after delicacies? Is it common sense that undercooking and overcooking a cornstarch sauce have the same effect of causing it to thin? Is it common sense that anchovy in small amounts richens meat glazes? Is it common sense that chocolate marries with chilis and beef? Don't underestimate the complexity of kitchen science. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #39 February 6, 2007 QuoteI don't believe the issue is that we create "global warming". If the Earth is warming, it is most likely a natural cycle. Scientists aren't nearly as smart as we give them credit for. Why? Well one reason is they rely to much on what they believe are "facts", but are nothing more than theories and guesses. They use this "data" to make claims. They never use common sense. If we do in fact have some impact on the Earth's climate, it is very small and almost insignificant. We believe we know so much about the Earth, but we don't. We have not had an intelligent society for very long (and I use the word intelligent very loosely, because whether or not we are intelligent is very debatable). I don't really care what methods scientists have for coming up with data that is thousands, millions and billions of years old. They have no idea what the Earth was doing a million years ago. That is more of a fact than anything they've come up with. Yeah , scientists are so stupid. Why don't you just relinquish all those products and services that have resulted from the work of dumb scientists. Like anything powered by electricity, antibiotics, vaccines, air travel, anything made of aluminum, plastic... That'll show them what you think of them.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #40 February 6, 2007 QuoteCommon sense usually works when you're trying to cook dinner. Those frequency adverbs are pesky little boogers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #41 February 14, 2007 These are from Drudge. Treat with skepticism. QuoteThe Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?” QuoteSAVE IT FOR A SUNNY DAY: Maryville Univ. in St. Louis area cancelling screening of Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' because of a snowstorm... This winter is shaping up to be a particularly cold one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
