billvon 2,400 #251 July 15, 2009 >the famous hockey stick has long been proven to be false . . . No, it hasn't. Even when you apply the corrections suggested by McIntyre and McKitrick it looks the same. Every other reconstruction looks the same, too. Below are ten or so. Notice anything similar about them? >and especially ecause they have been compromised by urban development over >the years (close to build up areas, traffic, air conditioners etc.). And in irrigated parks, under trees we planted and near canals. There are local forcings in both directions; the errors average out and there isn't much effect either way as a result. >The only reliable measurements are sattelite based and they show a different picture. See below. They show the same trend. The angle "it's not really getting warmer" is trivially easy to disprove. Glaciers are melting, ice is receding and harvest times are changing. Tell someone who lives in Alaska that the planet isn't warming and he will look out his window and then laugh at you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #252 July 15, 2009 >I don't mind people and businesses making money. I do care when governments decide who wins and loses and when people and businesses say they are not in it for the money. Yep. Didn't you say you were a libertarian? If not, your definitely close enough. Are libertarians crazy? That is another thread to be sure. >First: Instead of bailouts? How about "no bailouts. Fuck them." They already happened. Oops! >Second: if there were profits to make then private industry would have done it. Don't be silly. Everything takes a bit of time even in the private sector. Not every new technology was profitable in its first days, but many that weren't profitable for years created major markets. How long are (edit) *new* businesses expected to be in the red before they earn profit, again? I heard something along the lines of three years. The company I work for is a good example. Cmon, lawrocket, don't be that general! You surely meant to say something smarter than that. >If private industry can't do it profitably, then the government won't. You certainly hope so being a free-market anarchist and all. (edit) Hell, I suppose I will spend some time finding a counterexample. So... then... could the government not operate the U.S. military to earn a profit? You may say: Well, private industries do operate militaries, an example being Blackwater. And then I say: Would Blackwater exist without the government? And then you say: Most definitely not to the proportions that it currently does. The government subsidizes their services, and they earn profit on that. And then I say: Oh.... wait... were you making that point or was I? >Add to that the money that the government would lose in tariffs, taxes, leases, payroll taxes, corporate taxes, capital gains, etcm, you are talking about bringing in a subsidized industry and ruining a huge tax base. Ok.... so then we will... keep taxes? You are a very, very confusing libertarian. (edit) Wait aminute... thats right. You would just eliminate the government from the equation. Not so confusing. Crazy? Another thread, >Remember - those huge profits that oil companies make are music to the ears of the treasury. Great. >>I wonder if we would actually have more national security threats as a result of stopping our oil consumption. I'd like to learn more about that. >I haven't considered that point. But since you have no credibility or qualifications in that area, you really aren't capable of bringing up a point like that. Assuming I don't have qualifications in the area, it would then make it less likely that I would have relevant information to add to the claim as opposed to someone who did say have a lot of foreign policy experience or perhaps were a graduate student in history or maybe even a member of a radical Islamic group in Saudi-Arabia. They would be the ones to ask. If i didn't have any (or only had a few) qualifications in this area, I definitely wouldn't be a prime consultant on the issue, but I could still have a valid point. It is just less likely. (edit) Wait a minute, Chasteh, that sounds a lot like how issues are handled now! Blasted private and government research organizations... hiring qualified persons to conduct research and all. They should hire guys from the dz.com forums. What were they thinking! >you have no credibility or qualifications in that area I guess I better not tell you about my time with Exxon then. (Oops!) No, I don't think your an asshole. You're just a lawyer, one who is very skillful at bending what someone else says slightly enough so that it serves your interests and makes it so that most others don't notice, including judges. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #253 July 15, 2009 >A gallon of gas generates about 20 pounds of CO2 Well that doesn't make sense. What does a gallon of gas weigh? A gallon of avgas (or 100 octane low-lead gasoline) weights 6 pounds. Where do the 20 pounds come from? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #254 July 15, 2009 >A gallon of avgas (or 100 octane low-lead gasoline) weights 6 pounds. Where >do the 20 pounds come from? Air. (Think about the O2 part of CO2.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #255 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteCheck out the trends. You should do that. While you're at it, check out the difference between average annual temperatures and average pent-annual temperatures. So why is this causing so much conversation among climatologists - even proponents who are admitting they can't explainit if the data are confirmed. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #256 July 15, 2009 Quote>A gallon of gas generates about 20 pounds of CO2 Well that doesn't make sense. What does a gallon of gas weigh? A gallon of avgas (or 100 octane low-lead gasoline) weights 6 pounds. Where do the 20 pounds come from? Burn 12 pounds of carbon (whether as elemental carbon or in a hydrocarbon) in air and get 44 pounds of CO2 (there are 32 pounds of oxygen and 12 pounds of carbon).... 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
kallend 1,623 #257 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIt doesn't show that CO2 causes an increase in the amount of heat in a system, it shows how CO2 acts to retain heat put in a system from an external source. Then why did you say Quote3) does a system increase in temperature if you increase its capacity to retain heat? Care to make up your mind what you're arguing? QuoteCO2 does not cause heat. No shit. All you are doing is showing all of us that you do not know anything about the subject you are writing about. I guess I'm embarrassed for you really. You may want to have a word with Jack... he's claiming that adding CO2 will ALWAYS result in a temperature increase. Maybe you should be embarassed for him, seeing as you were claiming that wasn't what he said, upthread. Your straw-man is not very effective.... 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
mnealtx 0 #258 July 15, 2009 QuoteYour straw-man is not very effective. Hint: It's not a strawman when he actually said it. I guess I'm embarassed for you, really.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #259 July 15, 2009 QuoteYou may want to have a word with Jack... he's claiming that adding CO2 will ALWAYS result in a temperature increase. QuoteQuoteYour straw-man is not very effective. Hint: It's not a strawman when he actually said it. I guess I'm embarassed for you, really. In which post did he say that it ALWAYS does it? One of your problems is that you don;t seem to know the difference between heat and temperature.... 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
mnealtx 0 #260 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteYour straw-man is not very effective. Hint: It's not a strawman when he actually said it. I guess I'm embarassed for you, really. In which post did he say that it ALWAYS does it? What's that line you like so much? Ah, yes... "do your own homework".Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #261 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYour straw-man is not very effective. Hint: It's not a strawman when he actually said it. I guess I'm embarassed for you, really. In which post did he say that it ALWAYS does it? What's that line you like so much? Ah, yes... "do your own homework". Can't find it. eh? SInce you obviously know no thermodynamics I think you are having a hard time interpreting thermodynamic arguments and keep getting the wrong end of the stick.... 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
mnealtx 0 #262 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYour straw-man is not very effective. Hint: It's not a strawman when he actually said it. I guess I'm embarassed for you, really. In which post did he say that it ALWAYS does it? What's that line you like so much? Ah, yes... "do your own homework". Can't find it. eh? SInce you obviously know no thermodynamics I think you are having a hard time interpreting thermodynamic arguments and keep getting the wrong end of the stick. I know exactly where he said it - not my fault if you can't find it. I really don't give a rat's ass about your opinion, either, so you can keep THAT to yourself, as well.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #263 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You may want to have a word with Jack... he's claiming that adding CO2 will ALWAYS result in a temperature increase. QuoteYour straw-man is not very effective. Hint: It's not a strawman when he actually said it. I guess I'm embarassed for you, really. In which post did he say that it ALWAYS does it? What's that line you like so much? Ah, yes... "do your own homework". Can't find it. eh? SInce you obviously know no thermodynamics I think you are having a hard time interpreting thermodynamic arguments and keep getting the wrong end of the stick. I know exactly where he said it - not my fault if you can't find it. I really don't give a rat's ass about your opinion, either, so you can keep THAT to yourself, as well. Can't find it, eh? That's because he didn't make such a claim, and you misinterpreted what he did write for reasons that are obvious.... 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
lawrocket 3 #264 July 15, 2009 Quote >I don't mind people and businesses making money. I do care when governments decide who wins and loses and when people and businesses say they are not in it for the money. Yep. Didn't you say you were a libertarian? If not, your definitely close enough. Are libertarians crazy? That is another thread to be sure. No. Not "were" a libertarian. I am. Libertarian = honest. We don't lie about our intentions like good conservatives and liberals. We like sex. We like alcohol. We work for outselves. We donate to feel good about ourselves and not bring press to ourselves. Thus, libertarians say, "fuck you." It's actually part of our platform. "Fuck you. We admit who we are. You don't." Libertarians are the people who actually will admit we are Willie Nelson fans. Conservatives and liberals can't bring themselves to admit that they, too, actually like Willie Nelson. [Replt]>First: Instead of bailouts? How about "no bailouts. Fuck them." They already happened. Oops! And libertarians are saying, "we told you." [Reply]Don't be silly. Everything takes a bit of time even in the private sector. Not every new technology was profitable in its first days, but many that weren't profitable for years created major markets. How long are (edit) *new* businesses expected to be in the red before they earn profit, again? I heard something along the lines of three years. The company I work for is a good example. Cmon, lawrocket, don't be that general! You surely meant to say something smarter than that. So you admit that right now it isn't feasible. Look at the dot com bubble. It burst because it was learned that businesses actually have to turn a profit before the money runs out. "The glory is in doing it first. The money is in doing it second." - Larry Bell The government may get the glory and go broke doing it. [Reply]You certainly hope so being a free-market anarchist and all. I am not an anarchist. I believe in the rule of law. I also see how the rule of law can be used as a political weapon to destroy. [Reply]So... then... could the government not operate the U.S. military to earn a profit? Nope. Military is not for profit. History has shown that, has it not? War is costly and brings deficits. War is for political objectives. Interesting how when politics come in, money is no issue. [Reply] Blackwater. Yes. A business that profits off of a not for profit matter. Thanks to politics, they have done well. [Reply] Would Blackwater exist without the government? Nope. Shows how fucked up government is, duddenit? It's a point we can both agree upon. [Reply] Ok.... so then we will... keep taxes? You are a very, very confusing libertarian. I went off of your point. Money to be made. Nope. Money to be lost. Libertarians are realists. Want to get taxes, then don't eat the goose that laid the golden egg. [Reply]You would just eliminate the government from the equation. Not so confusing. Crazy? Another thread, You know not what dwells withon my heart and mind. Government is necessary to ensure that the contracts made in individuals in society are honores and to preserve those commons necessary. Vigilantism is not efficient. Government actually does a better job than vigilantes. And since we have that Constitution (that I believe means what it says) there are things that government is supposed to accomplish. Feeding Charlie Cong and imprisoning me for pissing in my backyard, I believe, goes beyond. [Reply]Assuming I don't have qualifications in the area, this aint a court of law, sir. We can assume what we want. [Reply] it would then make it less likely that I would have relevant information to add to the claim as opposed to someone who did say have a lot of foreign policy experience or perhaps were a graduate student in history or maybe even a member of a radical Islamic group in Saudi-Arabia. helluvan assumption. [Reply] They would be the ones to ask. If i didn't have any (or only had a few) qualifications in this area, They would be. Well, I WAS the person. This is the equivalent of, "you can't do that." Yeah? I just did. I should trty this self-anointing stuff more often. I see why bible thumpers and watermelons like it so much. I should have paid more attention during the Project Self Esteem lessons, but I had too much self respect. [Reply] I could still have a valid point. It is just less likely. Indeed. It'd be a shame if a valid point was overlooked because some asshole deemed you unworthy. [Reply]They should hire guys from the dz.com forums. What were they thinking! No shit. One might actually be teaching ing Chicago or developing batteries in San Diego. Can't have that. They post on dz.com. [Reply]>you have no credibility or qualifications in that area I guess I better not tell you about my time with Exxon then. That may qualify to to expoain how you destroyed the planet, but not sociopolitical issues. Don't you have a Flipper to oil up, Captain Hazelwood? [Reply]No, I don't think your an asshole. You've just lost ALL credibility. [Sly] My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #265 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteAll you are doing is showing all of us that you do not know anything about the subject you are writing about. I guess I'm embarrassed for you really. You may want to have a word with Jack... he's claiming that adding CO2 will ALWAYS result in a temperature increase. Maybe you should be embarassed for him, seeing as you were claiming that wasn't what he said, upthread. Seriously Mike, learn to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Erroll 49 #266 July 15, 2009 Quote Burn 12 pounds of carbon (whether as elemental carbon or in a hydrocarbon) in air and get 44 pounds of CO2 (there are 32 pounds of oxygen and 12 pounds of carbon). I find this very interesting. Does it follow then that there are (in this example) 32 pounds less 'available' O2? What effect does that have in the grand scheme of things? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #267 July 15, 2009 QuoteYou haven't offered any proof that adding ppm of CO2 will cause any noticeable difference in the temperature. Yes, your understanding of thermo is correct. It's the degree of change that's in doubt here (...pun intended). I have offered proof that the mechanism for CO2 based global warming is real and is in effect and the evidence for this is indisputable (even lawrocket and mnealtx agree). What I haven't offered is an estimate of how fast or how high temeratures will rise, I have only shown that the mechanism is proven to be there to enable it to happen. Be very clear about what I have said and what I haven't for it is important. It is very common for people to misinterpret what scientist say about everything (think how wuffos misunderstand skydiving). Unfortunately there is an underlying chronic and massive failure to understand even the most basic scientific principles in many (most?) people. Again (and I repeat this often because it is of vital importance and people absolutely do not listen) but this is down to people getting their science from everywhere under the sun except reputable scientific sources and they virtually always get the wrong end of the stick because of it. If GW is going to be a disaster, it will be because of this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #268 July 15, 2009 Do you know/think the use of Solar Power to break down CO2 (such as the - Counter Rotating Ring Receiver Reactor Recuperator - CR5) will eventually work to a significant degree? If so, could we use it at an industrial level to build atmospheric 'scrubbers' - just pull the CO2 that we (and let's not forget nature) has thrown into the sky...... How many would we need? We should also probably stop chopping down the Earths 'Lungs'!! and even plant more trees (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #269 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteWhat do you think would happen if some of the people here wrote science reports? You'd find lots of trash and perhaps a few nuggets. QuoteWhat would happen if people didn't have to pass the bar exam to be lawyers? What piss poor standard of law would be practiced then eh? Yes and no. There are some brilliant folks I've known who couldn't pass the bar. There are also dipshits like me who have. The Bar is meant to establish some kind of minimum competence for someone who will be assisting another person. On the other hand, there are people out there whom I believe have some powerful things to say about the law who are not attorneys. I tend to find myself frequently falling into the lawyer way of doing things and thinking, which can be hazardous in many situations. Each point should be met by its own merits. Just because Dewey Cheatham is a piece of crap, he will often have arguments and theories that are valid and require a careful response. Never underestimate the opponent. There is a saying in science circles: "that's not right, it's not even wrong". It's from something Wolfgang Pauli once said when confronted with a paper that was based on such neanderthal misunderstanding of known and proven scientific principles that any and all work built on it was just plain old gibberish and not worthy of further consideration. One of the things I keep banging on about is the woeful lack of understanding many, many people have about even the most basic scientific principles. They get their science from newspapers and TV shows and internet blog sites and all kinds of crappy sources that don't know what they are talking about. In fact they go everywhere except reputable science sources which they avoid like the plague citing political bias or some other excuse, an idea they got from those same crappy sources who don't know what they're talking about. And they are so uneducated about real science that they are not even capable of recognising that they are "not even wrong". In a perfect world, each point should be considered on it's own merits that's true. But that only works if you can recognise a merit when you see one. If you allow uneducated idiots a free reign to educate more people in their idiocy, all you get is more uneducated idiots. If you'd never been skydiving but wanted to try, would you trawl through piles of shit advice and take each on their own merit? How many jumps do you think you'd get before burning in? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #270 July 15, 2009 Quote You mean the 40 mile thick layer of gas on top of an (average) 2 mile thick ocean? If you put a 20 foot thick blanket on top of a foot-thick person, would you expect it to not have any effect? What's the ratios of mass * heat capacity here?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #271 July 15, 2009 Quote>A gallon of avgas (or 100 octane low-lead gasoline) weights 6 pounds. Where >do the 20 pounds come from? Air. (Think about the O2 part of CO2.) Are there any processes to quickly remove the Carbon from CO2? Or is it theoretically possible to create one?-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #272 July 15, 2009 Quote What's the ratios of mass * heat capacity here? Air (Sea level, dry, 0 °C) 1.0035 J/(g·K) Water, liquid (25 °C) 4.1813 J/(g·K) Now, we just need to get a reasonable estimate of the air and water masses.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #273 July 15, 2009 QuoteAre there any processes to quickly remove the Carbon from CO2? Or is it theoretically possible to create one? You mean like photosynthesis? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #274 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteAre there any processes to quickly remove the Carbon from CO2? Or is it theoretically possible to create one? You mean like photosynthesis? I was looking for something that could be used within a vehicle, to remove the carbon from the exhaust before it was released into my breathing air. It might be feasible to build gardens onto industrial complexes to fix the carbon, but I don't think it will scale well to individual users. The problem with using the "communal atmosphere" as a transport device for waste byproducts is that I have to breathe the communal atmosphere.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #275 July 15, 2009 >>> Communal transport You already are breathing the communal air/transport. Bill is suggesting that things can be done to keep remove it by everyone or by businesses that would seek to trap it. I'm not sure about bill's methane idea. Turning a greehouse gas into a more potent greehouse gas is itself troublesome to me. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
