A New Analysis That Will Not Make BeGreen Happy

[jjbaer]

This is not an us/them discussion. Surely as a scientist you have made an erroneous hypothesis once in your life? Isn't that what science is all about? But now, after 25 years of concentrated testing, models and real results (aka glacial melt, arctic permafrost melt, greenland icecap melt), the period of hypothesis is over, global warming is here. The only question now is whether we will reach the point of dramatic shutdown of balanced systems in which case the growing of corn in ND is academic and moot.

BeGreen,

There are many notable scientists who say otherwise about global warming:

http://en.wiki.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

amongst these are:

Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences:

and

William M. Gray, Colorado State University:

this last one, Dr. Gray...he was the one who predicts the hurricanes each year.....you gonna tell me he and the MIT prof are "crack pots"...?

how about some more from that web site:

Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics:

or

Tim Patterson [15], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada:


so...not saying it ISN'T happening, all I'm saying is that the same group who was saying the "sky is falling" in the 19 with "global ice age" are now saying the "sky is falling" with "global warming" yet there are MANY CREDIBLE SCIENTISTS who say otherwise...that's all I'm saying.

At least I'm willing to look at BOTH sides but you listen to only one side......

AND, as far as some "crop yields decreasing because of higher night time temps", there are also NEW agricultural areas created because the higher temperatures will allow crops to be planted where they never could before.....but again, you look at only those areas that support your theory....all I'm saying is look at it in totality (i.e., the NET result).

The group of scientists from the 70's are largely retired or dead. I do not know you. These are not "my" theories. You do not "know" me. Though you do resemble someone I "Frank"ly do know a little about.

Be green,

Your "therapy" is almost over, "Frank" or whoever you are...LOL...at least NOW you're not continuing to delude yourself and you now ADMIT that there WAS a crackpot "global cooling" theory 30 years ago......hey, a few more steps in "castirons reality acceptance program" and you'll be released......

You are however, still not being academically truthful when you try to discard the crackpot "global cooling" theory by saying "many of those scientists from the 70's are dead". OK..let's say they're all dead. You seem to think that being "dead" and having been replaced by a "living" group who are now saying "global warming", somehow exonerates this first group while validating this second group ......it doesn't! But hey, let's say it does, for arguments sake. Then using your reasoning, you must also acknowledge another "living" group that disagrees with "global warming" and, unlike the global warming group, has NEVER waivered on their belief that their theory may be or is wrong! That's all I'm saying.

So, what does this all mean: even though I doubt man is the deciding factor in the slight temperature rises we've seen, I agree that pouring massive amounts of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere is NOT the right thing to do...doesn't mean I believe that CO2 is causing global warming but rather we need to come up with more environmentally friendly ways of producing power, that is, producing power while adding little to nothing to the environment that wasn't already there. This is validated by my first-hand experience as a former power plant engineer (at a coal and oil fired unit).

In the end however, even ultra clean power production still results in adding heat to the atmosphere since all energy is eventually disapated as heat but, we can at least demand that power production be as clean as possible.

Isn't it amazing that two people, who are diametric in their beliefs on what is causing global warming, would both be pursuing the same end-game, but for different reasons Gotta love it!

Hello,

I need to qualify my statement that:

"In the end however, even ultra clean power production still results in adding heat to the atmosphere since all energy is eventually disapated as heat but, we can at least demand that power production be as clean as possible".

Comment: We only add additional heat to the atmosphere if we continue to use fossil fuels since we're pulling these out of the ground, burning them and all the energy ends up heating the atmosphere to a higher level that we would have without burning these. I don't think solar energy would add to this problem. Why? because without solar power, for example, a 1 sq meter patch of ground receives on average about 1 KW/hr of energy which heats the earth. A solar panel occupying this same 1 sq meter patch of ground intercepts this SAME quantity of solar radiation and turns some of it into electricity and the rest is dissipated as heat. In the end I think the heating effect is the same as if the panel weren't there so there's probably no (or little) net heating effect. Not so for coal, oil, natural gas, etc where we pull it out of the ground, burn it and add heat to the atmosphere.

Ok...I know Sandor...that makes me an internet Troll....

 

[Eric Johnson]

A troll is someone who hangs around the Ashcan making long, in-your-face gasbag posts with lots of capital characters, but who doesn't contribute to the other forums. Trolls seem to think that they know it all, and anyone who disagrees with them is either a moron or a silly Liberal. Trolls quickly find that there's nobody left to argue with, however, because nobody wants to feed the trolls. Trolls don't understand this. They think they've won all the arguments, leaving everyone else speechless with their brillance. Satisfied that their work is done, trolls move on to the next website.

 

[jjbaer]

A troll is someone who hangs around the Ashcan making long, in-your-face gasbag posts with lots of capital characters, but who doesn't contribute to the other forums. Trolls seem to think that they know it all, and anyone who disagrees with them is either a moron or a silly Liberal. Trolls quickly find that there's nobody left to argue with, however, because nobody wants to feed the trolls. Trolls don't understand this. They think they've won all the arguments, leaving everyone else speechless with their brillance. Satisfied that their work is done, trolls move on to the next website.

Eric,

No...I'm simply responding to what lib gas bags have already said and that morons appear to readily accept with no proof what-so-ever required........then when counter proof is provided by people like me, Liberal morons search for the guilty and punish the innocent by attacking people like me and calling me "Trolls".........

Resorting to "name calling" when someone like me says "wait a minute...that's not a valid argument" is typical of what Liberals do when the facts don't support them.......so they go on the attack and name-call instead...........

I challenge you to move out of the Liberal moron category and address the issues:

1) someone called Bush a moron compared to Gore....we'll, the facts say otherwise. Now, without calling me names, please tell me why you think Gore was a better student but keep in mind these facts: he flunked out of Divinity school, didn't finish law school, etc.....

2) On the global warming issue......please, again, without calling me names, address the "global cooling" fiasco of 30 years ago and the same group now saying "global warming" and then address the contrary opinion (no global warming) that IS supported by very well respected scientists and THEN, after taking all than into account, you can shoot your mouth off and name call...but not before...........

3) as far as you untrue comment that trolls "don't contribute to the other forums" ...this is again, a load of Liberal lies....... I've contributed to other forums including one detailed initial analysis on how to calcualte heat loss and to put sizing a stove into proper perspective.............

Any comments or are you going to trash me with more "name calling" rather than addressing the facts?

 

[webbie]

Hey, this thead won't die, will it?

I'll have to close it.....hey, cast, if you want a good one for the military, see my recent post about Fighting for our Stoves. I have to analyze it though, the last paragraph seems to be saying that he will only 'defend" against actual attacks...in other words, not be the aggressor.

Hey, cast, you may not enjoy folks with other points of view...but no one is forcing you to come here - and I might say that you are not changing many hearts and minds. Either am I. The Ash Can is simply a place for our regular members to blow off steam...usually on topics at least somewhat related to energy.

You would (if you care) be much more effective without classifying folks into one of two camps. I mean, my goodness, you called Sandor a liberal! Heck, is Rummy a liberal also?

Ok, now for my final opinion, which is just a rehash of previous. I am not a scientist and in many ways could care less about global warming - it is really a bit too big to get my head around. BUT, there are so many other reasons to take the same actions (national security, energy independence, pollution reduction, etc.) that , IMHO, the point is moot. And, given the tendency of "your side" to talk about mushroom clouds and backpack bombs as imminent threats, I think you are calling the kettle black by questioning actual researched scenarios. After all, the fearmongering which makes you happy contains complete fabrications......so which are more "far out"?

If you think it is OK for 5% of the worlds population to use 25% of it's resources, so be it. I don't. And I see the solution based BOTH on legislation and technology.