brenthutch 444 #76 January 5, 2012 Quote So whats wrong with the accord? Its surely better than a prius. as a matter of fact I have a Honda Accord coupe 6 speeds and 265 HP. Lots of fun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #77 January 5, 2012 Quote>Where are the 15 questions? Here they are: How could mutations create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? Why is natural selection taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? How did new biochemical pathways originate? Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? How did multi-cellular life originate? How did sex originate? Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Why is evolution taught as if it is the same as this operational science? Why is a fundamentally religious idea taught in science classes? News Flash Bill! I Believe in evolution. But I have room for the notion that the big creator may use the rules of physics to run her universe. I Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skiskyrock 0 #78 January 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteBased on the global temperature data from the National Climate Date Center, 17 of the hottest twenty years on record have occured within the last 20 years (1991-2010). All of them have occured within the last 30 years. That would be significant, *IF* the data hadn't been 'adjusted' over and over and over again. The data are adjusted to give a global average with minimal influence from instrumental bias. Adjustments are improved over time so values may change slightly; this isn't a problem if done consistently Three groups have produced similar trends using different gridding and correction techniques, a fourth (from noted sceptics) is in the peer review process . These trends are supported by independent satellite and bore hole measurements. QuoteQuoteIf you go back to the paleoclimate record, there are warmer times in the Earth's past, but other forces were operating on the climate then. Like what? changes in the intensity of the sun, changes is the tilt of the earth's axis and the elipticity of it's orbit. Changes in the position of the continents. Changes in ocean currents. Changes in the amount of plant life. Changes in volcanic acitivity. You do realize that the highest CO2 peaks are in the Cambrian (prior to life on land) and Jurrassic periods, don't you? Current CO2 levels are higher than any time since humans evolved. QuoteQuoteCO2 produces warming of the atmosphere through well understood, basic physics. CO2 was in the *thousands* during the historical record. and a good thing, too the sun was probably a good bit dimmer and without the extra CO2 we wouldn't have had liquid water QuoteQuoteIf you think that CO2 isn't the cause of the current warming, you have to come up with two unknown factors in climate: one that cancels out the CO2 based warming, and another that is responsible for the current warming trend. If you think that CO2 *IS* the cause of the current warming, you have to show WHY we didn't have that 'tipping point runaway' during the historical record. You are the only one arguing arguing for a run away. Jim Hansen argues that if we burn all fossil fuels reserves we may go into a Venus runaway situation , but that is a more of a theoretical argument and he is in the minority on the subject. What is likely is that we have pushed the climate to the point where we will see big shifts in ecosystems and mass extinctions. The only comparable event in Earth's history is the Pliocene -Eocene thermal maximum (PETM). Temperatures shot up 6C over 20000 years and triggered extinctions in the oceans and changes land animals. We could see similar temperature shifts in 100-200 years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #79 January 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteBased on the global temperature data from the National Climate Date Center, 17 of the hottest twenty years on record have occured within the last 20 years (1991-2010). All of them have occured within the last 30 years. That would be significant, *IF* the data hadn't been 'adjusted' over and over and over again. The data are adjusted to give a global average with minimal influence from instrumental bias. And plenty from institutional bias. QuoteQuoteQuoteIf you go back to the paleoclimate record, there are warmer times in the Earth's past, but other forces were operating on the climate then. Like what? changes in the intensity of the sun, changes is the tilt of the earth's axis and the elipticity of it's orbit. Changes in the position of the continents. Changes in ocean currents. Changes in the amount of plant life. Changes in volcanic acitivity. You do realize that the highest CO2 peaks are in the Cambrian (prior to life on land) and Jurrassic periods, don't you? Current CO2 levels are higher than any time since humans evolved. And now they're *all* overshadowed by *gasp* manmade CO2!!! Horrors!!! You do realize that NOW you're going to have to prove that manmade CO2 has a different effect on the climate than natural CO2, don't you? Of course, you'll also have to explain away the Medieval, Roman and Minoan Warm Periods, all with temps higher than today and all with lower CO2. QuoteQuoteQuoteCO2 produces warming of the atmosphere through well understood, basic physics. CO2 was in the *thousands* during the historical record. and a good thing, too the sun was probably a good bit dimmer and without the extra CO2 we wouldn't have had liquid water Yeah, gonna need a cite for that if you want it to be considered proof. QuoteQuoteQuoteIf you think that CO2 isn't the cause of the current warming, you have to come up with two unknown factors in climate: one that cancels out the CO2 based warming, and another that is responsible for the current warming trend. If you think that CO2 *IS* the cause of the current warming, you have to show WHY we didn't have that 'tipping point runaway' during the historical record. You are the only one arguing arguing for a run away. Jim Hansen argues that if we burn all fossil fuels reserves we may go into a Venus runaway situation , but that is a more of a theoretical argument and he is in the minority on the subject. Is *that* why the 'scientists' keep saying we have to act NOW to prevent all those catastrophic outcomes? QuoteWhat is likely is that we have pushed the climate to the point where we will see big shifts in ecosystems and mass extinctions. The only comparable event in Earth's history is the Pliocene -Eocene thermal maximum (PETM). Temperatures shot up 6C over 20000 years and triggered extinctions in the oceans and changes land animals. We could see similar temperature shifts in 100-200 years. Uh huh. Let's see the proof on *that* scenario, too. So just *when* did CO2 (and especially manmade CO2) gain the magical ability to override all those other forces listed earlier, pray tell?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #80 January 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteBased on the global temperature data from the National Climate Date Center, 17 of the hottest twenty years on record have occured within the last 20 years (1991-2010). All of them have occured within the last 30 years. That would be significant, *IF* the data hadn't been 'adjusted' over and over and over again. The data are adjusted to give a global average with minimal influence from instrumental bias. Adjustments are improved over time so values may change slightly; this isn't a problem if done consistently Three groups have produced similar trends using different gridding and correction techniques, a fourth (from noted sceptics) is in the peer review process . These trends are supported by independent satellite and bore hole measurements. QuoteQuoteIf you go back to the paleoclimate record, there are warmer times in the Earth's past, but other forces were operating on the climate then. Like what? changes in the intensity of the sun, changes is the tilt of the earth's axis and the elipticity of it's orbit. Changes in the position of the continents. Changes in ocean currents. Changes in the amount of plant life. Changes in volcanic acitivity. You do realize that the highest CO2 peaks are in the Cambrian (prior to life on land) and Jurrassic periods, don't you? Current CO2 levels are higher than any time since humans evolved. QuoteQuoteCO2 produces warming of the atmosphere through well understood, basic physics. CO2 was in the *thousands* during the historical record. and a good thing, too the sun was probably a good bit dimmer and without the extra CO2 we wouldn't have had liquid water QuoteQuoteIf you think that CO2 isn't the cause of the current warming, you have to come up with two unknown factors in climate: one that cancels out the CO2 based warming, and another that is responsible for the current warming trend. If you think that CO2 *IS* the cause of the current warming, you have to show WHY we didn't have that 'tipping point runaway' during the historical record. You are the only one arguing arguing for a run away. Jim Hansen argues that if we burn all fossil fuels reserves we may go into a Venus runaway situation , but that is a more of a theoretical argument and he is in the minority on the subject. What is likely is that we have pushed the climate to the point where we will see big shifts in ecosystems and mass extinctions. The only comparable event in Earth's history is the Pliocene -Eocene thermal maximum (PETM). Temperatures shot up 6C over 20000 years and triggered extinctions in the oceans and changes land animals. We could see similar temperature shifts in 100-200 years. So.....You agree with me??!?!??!? Let me ask you a straight forward question: If $3.50 gas will destroy the planet; What price of gas will save the planet? Just give me a number! How much of my daughters college tuition will I have to divert to "save the planet"??? If I pay $250 per gallon to fill up my Honda, will it the planet be saved?? Just let me know how much I will have to pay for gas to save the world? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #81 January 5, 2012 >I Believe in evolution. Uh, OK. I wasn't suggesting you didn't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #82 January 5, 2012 >Let me ask you a straight forward question: If $3.50 gas will destroy the planet; >What price of gas will save the planet? Which is like asking - if the EPA will destroy the economy of the US, what government agency will save it? If deficits are bad, how high do taxes have to be to save us? The price of gas has nothing to do with what will "save the planet." Nor will reducing CO2 "save the planet." The planet is not doomed; it has survived far worse than we can dish out. At most we can alter its temperature by a little bit - even the absolute worse case highest estimate is only 6 degrees C; you'd barely notice that if the weather forecast was off by that. And the more reasonable estimates (assuming we work towards reducing emissions which we are doing already) are 2 to 3C. What will that do to crops in the US? Or sea levels? Or water and power demand? How much will it cost to have a big fraction of our wheat production move to Canada? Will increased water demands in arid areas require us to build billion dollar water projects to move water from Canada to LA? Those are the questions that people are trying to answer now. It may be that those things are expensive, and it would make more sense to reduce the temperature increase to that 2C number. It may be that reducing our CO2 emissions significantly (i.e. hit scenario B1) might be too expensive, and we're willing to live with those temperature rises. But sticking your head in the sand and saying "there's no temperature rise! And if we did we didn't cause it! And even if we did the temperature rise is good! And even if it's bad it's all a big Al Gore conspiracy to destroy me!" is counterproductive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skiskyrock 0 #83 January 5, 2012 Quote So.....You agree with me??!?!??!? Let me ask you a straight forward question: If $3.50 gas will destroy the planet; What price of gas will save the planet? Just give me a number! How much of my daughters college tuition will I have to divert to "save the planet"??? If I pay $250 per gallon to fill up my Honda, will it the planet be saved?? Just let me know how much I will have to pay for gas to save the world? No, I don't agree with you. Hansen has a minority opinion on the possibility of a Venus run away, which is an extreme case. He has a long and distinguished career as a climate scientist and his short term predictions are remarkably accurate. AS for the price of gasoline, how about free? When we as a society are willing to give up fossil fuels, even if they were free, because we understand the long term costs to the ecosystem, then we might stand a chance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #84 January 5, 2012 "But sticking your head in the sand and saying "there's no temperature rise! And if we did we didn't cause it! And even if we did the temperature rise is good! And even if it's bad it's all a big Al Gore conspiracy to destroy me!" is counterproductive. " Soooo What would be productive???? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #85 January 5, 2012 Quote"But sticking your head in the sand and saying "there's no temperature rise! And if we did we didn't cause it! And even if we did the temperature rise is good! And even if it's bad it's all a big Al Gore conspiracy to destroy me!" is counterproductive. " Soooo What would be productive???? HELL of a strawman, isn't it?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #86 January 5, 2012 >Soooo What would be productive? Working to understand the issues better while working to reduce the total pollution (not just CO2) we release. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #87 January 5, 2012 "The only comparable event in Earth's history is the Pliocene -Eocene thermal maximum (PETM). Temperatures shot up 6C over 20000 years and triggered extinctions in the oceans and changes land animals." And that was because the the troglodytes were running amok with their SUVs on cheap gas. To think if only had a cap and trade program in place, and priced carbon where God had intended, we would still have friendly pterodactyls roaming the heavens. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #88 January 5, 2012 "It may be that those things are expensive, and it would make more sense to reduce the temperature increase to that 2C number" And just how would we do that???? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skiskyrock 0 #89 January 5, 2012 Quote"It may be that those things are expensive, and it would make more sense to reduce the temperature increase to that 2C number" And just how would we do that???? as a start, implement any 7 from the following list 1. more efficient vehicles − increase fuel economy from 30 to 60 mpg (7.8 to 3.9 L/100 km) for 2 billion vehicles, 2. reduce use of vehicles − improve urban design to reduce miles driven from 10,000 to 5,000 miles (16,000 to 8,000 km) per year for 2 billion vehicles, 3. efficient buildings − reduce energy consumption by 25%, 4. improve efficiency of coal plants from today's 40% to 60%, 5. replace 1,400 GW (gigawatt) of coal power plants with natural gas, 6. capture and store carbon emitted from 800 GW of new coal plants, 7. capture and reuse hydrogen created by No. 6 above, 8. capture and store carbon from coal to syn fuels conversion at 30 million barrels per day (4,800,000 m3/d), 9. displace 700 GW of coal power with nuclear, 10. add 2 million 1 MW wind turbines (50 times current capacity), 11. displace 700 GW of coal with 2,000 GW (peak) solar power (700 times current capacity), 12. produce hydrogen fuel from 4 million 1 MW wind turbines, 13. use biomass to make fuel to displace oil (100 times current capacity), 14. stop de-forestation and re-establish 300 million hectares of new tree plantations, 15. conservation tillage − apply to all crop land (10 times current usage). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skiskyrock 0 #90 January 5, 2012 Quote "The only comparable event in Earth's history is the Pliocene -Eocene thermal maximum (PETM). Temperatures shot up 6C over 20000 years and triggered extinctions in the oceans and changes land animals." And that was because the the troglodytes were running amok with their SUVs on cheap gas. To think if only had a cap and trade program in place, and priced carbon where God had intended, we would still have friendly pterodactyls roaming the heavens. The causes of the PETM are unclear, but it is associated with the release of around 2800 to 6500 gigatons of carbon. We currently have added 370-670 gigatons to the atmosphere and it is increasing at a rate of 8 gigatons per year. Just because it has happened in the past doesn't mean we should do it again, deliberately. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #91 January 5, 2012 >And just how would we do that? Short term: CCS for coal plants Use of cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel as liquid fuel Increased use of nuclear power Increased use of geothermal power Better design of natural gas peaker plants Increased use of natural gas peaker/cogen plants Increased use of distributed solar and wind PHEV cars for fuel usage reduction Efficiency improvements for hydro plants Pumped storage Smart grid Mid term: Fuel switchover for aircraft HTGR reactors for electric and hydrogen generation CANDU reactors as PWR/BWR reactor replacement Superconducting power transmission backbones Long term: Solar power satellites D-T or HE3 fusion reactors Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #92 January 5, 2012 "The causes of the PETM are unclear, but" LOL Let us suppose we implement all of the aforementioned suggestions. How much will that reduce global temps? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #93 January 5, 2012 >How much will that reduce global temps? It won't. Even if we stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow, the CO2 already in the atmosphere will continue warming the planet for at least 50 years. (It will take that long for natural processes to remove it from the air, and for the planet to reradiate the extra energy.) It will just slow down the increase (as I explained in a previous post.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #94 January 5, 2012 Quote>How much will that reduce global temps? It won't. Even if we stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow, the CO2 already in the atmosphere will continue warming the planet for at least 50 years. (It will take that long for natural processes to remove it from the air, and for the planet to reradiate the extra energy.) It will just slow down the increase (as I explained in a previous post.) How much will it slow it down? Since global temps have been flat for the last 10 years it looks as if the switch to CF light bulbs have already done the trick. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #95 January 5, 2012 >How much will it slow it down? The 100 year increase would decrease from 6C (worst case with no mitigation) to 2C (lots of mitigation.) >Since global temps have been flat for the last 10 years it looks as if the switch to CF >light bulbs have already done the trick. They have helped. But the thing you want to watch is CO2 levels - and they're not flat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #96 January 5, 2012 Quote>How much will it slow it down? The 100 year increase would decrease from 6C (worst case with no mitigation) to 2C (lots of mitigation.) >Since global temps have been flat for the last 10 years it looks as if the switch to CF >light bulbs have already done the trick. They have helped. But the thing you want to watch is CO2 levels - and they're not flat. Doesn't that call into question the causal relationship between CO2 and Temp? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #97 January 5, 2012 Quote Quote >How much will it slow it down? The 100 year increase would decrease from 6C (worst case with no mitigation) to 2C (lots of mitigation.) >Since global temps have been flat for the last 10 years it looks as if the switch to CF >light bulbs have already done the trick. They have helped. But the thing you want to watch is CO2 levels - and they're not flat. Doesn't that call into question the causal relationship between CO2 and Temp? Heretic!! Leper outcast unclean! Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #98 January 5, 2012 These discussions remind me of a disagreement I had with another instructor this past summer. He thought we should land 1st jump students on the grass strip that ran along the runway. I pointed out that this strip was only 50 feet wide and next to an active runway. All He could see was a mile long strip of grass. I would say "only 50 feet wide" he would say "5000 feet long" After much discussion we agreed to disagree and continued to use the normal landing area (6 acres square). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #99 January 5, 2012 >Doesn't that call into question the causal relationship between CO2 and Temp? No, because it's not a year to year direct correlation; it's only long term. Year to year things like el nino, la nina (the ENSO in other words) has a bigger effect. Take a look at graphs of temperature from 1850 to today. 1880 was a very warm year; it wasn't that warm again for almost 60 years. 1945 was another very warm year; it wasn't that warm again for 15 years. 1998 was a very warm year; it wasn't that warm again for 7 years. But on average temperatures have gone up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #100 January 5, 2012 Yes it been well documented in the ice core. Temps go up and then CO2 follows. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
