Jon in SW Ohio
Reefer, the legal kind
slippertalker said:
Hopefully that way of handling doesn't involve Korea.
Jon
________
Extreme q vaporizer
Last edited:
Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:
Hopefully that way of handling doesn't involve Korea.
Jon
________
Extreme q vaporizer
M
Mahon
Guest
Global Warming
Zach,
I cannot keep up with your posts; too critical about the less important matter... your post from yesterday 5PM was changed twice just minutes after it was posted, then you changed it today around 11AM...
As for background radiation, yes, there is some, just not in a dangerous level... wherever you go (unless you are completely shielded), there is radiation. I have these measurements for you that I took:
Inside an ordinary room (at least here in Florida); about 15cpm
Outside (Florida); about 21cpm
Unfortunately, the device is only quantitative, not qualitative... if I had a direct source, then perhaps we would be in the more qualitative range...
Everyone,
Perhaps all of you 'global warming experts' should read this Speech delivered by Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), who is Chairman of the Senate Enviroment & Public Works commitee. Here is the link;
http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
Here are a few excerpts from his speech, in case you all become to 'closed minded' (I mean, that would be hypocritical, wouldn't it?)...
-->"Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age.
From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years."
Bill Bryson's 'A Short History On Nearly Everything' is a good book to look at too...
-PM
Zach,
I cannot keep up with your posts; too critical about the less important matter... your post from yesterday 5PM was changed twice just minutes after it was posted, then you changed it today around 11AM...
As for background radiation, yes, there is some, just not in a dangerous level... wherever you go (unless you are completely shielded), there is radiation. I have these measurements for you that I took:
Inside an ordinary room (at least here in Florida); about 15cpm
Outside (Florida); about 21cpm
Unfortunately, the device is only quantitative, not qualitative... if I had a direct source, then perhaps we would be in the more qualitative range...
Everyone,
Perhaps all of you 'global warming experts' should read this Speech delivered by Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), who is Chairman of the Senate Enviroment & Public Works commitee. Here is the link;
http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
Here are a few excerpts from his speech, in case you all become to 'closed minded' (I mean, that would be hypocritical, wouldn't it?)...
-->"Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age.
From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years."
Bill Bryson's 'A Short History On Nearly Everything' is a good book to look at too...
-PM
E
Eric Muehlbauer
Guest
Yes, Bryson's book "A Short History of Nearly Everything" is an excellent book, which I would recommend for everyone...but the current situation regarding global warming is not something that can be blamed on the media. The average worldwide climate is changing...no, not El Nino or local heat waves, or maybe even hurricane frequency, but temperature's are increasing, on average, worldwide...glaciers are melting...the North Pole was at least partially ice free last summer...don't know about this summer...for the first time in recorded history. And yes, these temperature variations have been normal, in overall prehistory. But, logically- CO2 is the main heat trapping gas...and while organisms on earth fix CO2 into tissues, volcanism releases CO2, respiration releases CO2, all of this has been more or less balanced...fluctuations, yes...CO2 drops, ...increases in marine life take up much CO2, climate cools.....not enough CO2, plant life, carbonate using phytoplankton decline...CO2 increases, climate warms again...all normal. But, over countless millenia a certain amount of carbon is removed from the system-sequestered- as organisms die and are buried in sediment, isolated from the overall carbon cycle. And so it goes for millenia........then, in the space of a several decades, a split second, geologically, all that sequestered carbon is released back into the atmosphere. How is it possible that it will not affect the climate? The earliest computer models predicting a rise in temperature due to CO2 increase were well over 20 years ago....and so far, they are not being refuted. The process could be reversed of course....in terms of warming...Yellowstone may blow up tomorrow, and the amount of dust thrown into the upper atmosphere could well reverse global warming for years...as I recall, the global temperature increase stopped in 1992 when the effects of Mt Pinatubo were felt all over the world. But to dismiss the current global warming as media hysteria or exploitation is something only a politician or an oilman could do....Take care, Eric
kentuckiense
Debaser
It changed once a minute or two after it was posted. I added that last phrase. As for the edit today, I noticed that I had used "my" instead of "by" once. I'm not going back and changing arguments or whatever.Mahon said:
I don't think anyone here is debating that radiation exists.Mahon said:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=E01&Cycle=2002&recipdetail=A&Mem=N&sortorder=UMahon said:Everyone,
Perhaps all of you 'global warming experts' should read this Speech delivered by Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), who is Chairman of the Senate Enviroment & Public Works commitee. Here is the link;
http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
Here are a few excerpts from his speech, in case you all become to 'closed minded' (I mean, that would be hypocritical, wouldn't it?)...
-->"Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age.
From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years."
Bill Bryson's 'A Short History On Nearly Everything' is a good book to look at too...
-PM
Check out number two on that list.
As for the rest of his tirade, that was him making a claim. I can't find any references for his "fourth attempt" thing or whatever. Even if I could, I don't exactly think media trends from 1895 are exactly a big deal. Wasn't phrenology still a legit practice then? And once again, he says MEDIA. I didn't hear mention of scientific community. The media LOVES shock-science stories; like the one in your first post in this thread.
Quote mine all you want.
M
Mahon
Guest
Speaking of Yellowstone, isn't the Old Faithful geyser blocked up? I actually don't know though...
How are we to be sure that the climate is actually, overall, warming up though? Now knowing that there have been 3 other, similar "occurances", with "domcumented research", I actually question that there is even a real noticable fluctuation...
This entire day, I have had nothing to do except rejuvinate orchid media and research everything I could on global warming. I noticed that Greenland is a big topic, but read in at least 2 places that though parts of Greenland are melting, the precipitation is accumulating more inland...
Then again, if there is in fact temperature fluctuation, then perhaps we are possibly witnessing natural selection in the proccess? I have heard that Polar Bears are drowning because of the large distance between thin ice floes?
Ok, but lets disregard EVERY source I could find concerning the falseness of global warming, and see what would become of the world if we had the opprotunity to absolutely elminate ALL pollution (including excess amounts of CO2)... If we use Nuclear Power plants (which I completely support), isn't a waste product steam (I am not going technical in this)? I think it was said earlier that H2O is also a greenhouse gas, so wouldn't excess amounts of this become a new concern for global warming? Then what do we use for general transportation? And how about it's efficiency; not only the energy saved by the product, but all the energy used in order to make and achieve this "efficiency"?
-Pat
How are we to be sure that the climate is actually, overall, warming up though? Now knowing that there have been 3 other, similar "occurances", with "domcumented research", I actually question that there is even a real noticable fluctuation...
This entire day, I have had nothing to do except rejuvinate orchid media and research everything I could on global warming. I noticed that Greenland is a big topic, but read in at least 2 places that though parts of Greenland are melting, the precipitation is accumulating more inland...
Then again, if there is in fact temperature fluctuation, then perhaps we are possibly witnessing natural selection in the proccess? I have heard that Polar Bears are drowning because of the large distance between thin ice floes?
Ok, but lets disregard EVERY source I could find concerning the falseness of global warming, and see what would become of the world if we had the opprotunity to absolutely elminate ALL pollution (including excess amounts of CO2)... If we use Nuclear Power plants (which I completely support), isn't a waste product steam (I am not going technical in this)? I think it was said earlier that H2O is also a greenhouse gas, so wouldn't excess amounts of this become a new concern for global warming? Then what do we use for general transportation? And how about it's efficiency; not only the energy saved by the product, but all the energy used in order to make and achieve this "efficiency"?
-Pat
M
Mahon
Guest
kentuckiense said:
Zach,
I see that we are involving politics... as you can see, then global warming has EVERYTHING to do with politics... just some people benifit from it...
He does discuss alot about media, as that is how science is getting to most of us (I am almost sure you didn't just bump into a scientist mumbling his global warming research)... but he also does make mentions of scientists' "research" which have now been disregarded... and that section about the 60 scientists also minimizes the research on global warming:
The 60 scientists wrote:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605
“If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.” The letter also noted:
“‘Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.’”
Some interesting things...
Also, I thought you had some silent disagreement with the radiation statement I made... sorry about the misunderstanding...
-Pat
Jon in SW Ohio
Reefer, the legal kind
Last edited:
kentuckiense
Debaser
Absolutely no idea. That would be somewhat comical, though.Mahon said:
Look at any average surface temperature vs. time graph.Mahon said:
Call me a skeptic, but Inhofe isn't my top choice for climactic information. And why put documented research in quotations? Inhofe sure never used it in his speech.Mahon said:
Increased temperatures = increased moisture in atmosphere = increased precipitation.Mahon said:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL026075.shtml
Natural selection is just a mechanism inherent to any environment in which there is life.Mahon said:
Politicians who recieve the majority of their donations from the energy/fossil fuel sector don't count.Mahon said:
CO2 doesn't just condense out of the atmosphere like water. Think about all of the places on Earth that are already at 100% humidity naturally. Furthermore, steam doesn't even have to be released. Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't it just be condensed on site?Mahon said:
From the scenario you presented, the electricity from above.Mahon said:
Well, you'll have to look into the numbers for nuclear fission. Is there a net gain in energy after the mining/processing/disposal of the Uranium? I don't know.Mahon said:
Nuclear fusion does sound promising, though. I'd like to hear more about it.
M
Mahon
Guest
...so, should we get more pirates, or get rid of what's left of them?
G
gore42
Guest
Jon,
Your graph must not count all those kids that used Napster as pirates. And everyone else now thats using edonkey and direct connect and....
- Matt
Your graph must not count all those kids that used Napster as pirates.
And everyone else now thats using edonkey and direct connect and....- Matt
M
Mahon
Guest
kentuckiense said:
Again, you have proved that global warming is politics... I am glad we can see something in common... now, as you can see, Inhofe is gaining something off politics and global warming, I agree with you and those statistics (unless it is somehow completely bogus). Why should he quit now, even if he truly believes that global warming is phony? He is getting money by defending that the earth is not facing global warming like the scientists and media project it to be... now, I am sure that the other side that supports global warming is getting someting out of it too... I am unsure about any details, and I am only speaking out of reasoning, but possibly the end of global warming ceases to exist when oil producers are finished? Perhaps global warming is propaganda... can this not all be realted to Nazi Germany? There are two sides to this, and it seems to be more political than scientific. I am sure a bribe can waffle and scientist's "research"...
Net gain, that is a term that is more useful to me! I am unsure if there is a net gain from mining, refining, and utilizing Uranium-235 through nuclear fission. Personally, I would assume that there is, depending upon percent used (I don't think you can really store the power, so there is bound to be lots of loss at different times)... on Navy ships, it is very rare (and sometimes dangerous) to operate under "full power"... but I will have to ask for statistics possibly tommorow, as my Navy recruiter is in the Nuclear Power Program...
But how can we utilize the electricity from nuclear power to machines and automobiles? Should we be trying to re-invent Nikola Tesla's electricity tower? I don't think that batteries are all that efficient, and I don't see Plutonium batteries coming out to replace any other battery, as it poses many health risks and dangers...
-Pat
kentuckiense
Debaser
Mahon said:Zach,
I see that we are involving politics... as you can see, then global warming has EVERYTHING to do with politics... just some people benifit from it...
He does discuss alot about media, as that is how science is getting to most of us (I am almost sure you didn't just bump into a scientist mumbling his global warming research)... but he also does make mentions of scientists' "research" which have now been disregarded... and that section about the 60 scientists also minimizes the research on global warming:
The 60 scientists wrote:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605
“If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.” The letter also noted:
“‘Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.’”
Some interesting things...
Also, I thought you had some silent disagreement with the radiation statement I made... sorry about the misunderstanding...
-Pat
I actually combed the list and counted those that were in the climatology or meteorology field. There were 29 out of the original 60. Now think about how many advanced climatologists/meteorologists did not want to participate in this petition. It somewhat reminds me of Project Steve.
kentuckiense
Debaser
In order to get ANYTHING done the poltical arena has to be entered. That is how change is brought about. I'm not really understanding why that's a huge issue.Mahon said:
It was about time for Godwin's Law to be invoked!Mahon said:I am glad we can see something in common... now, as you can see, Inhofe is gaining something off politics and global warming, I agree with you and those statistics (unless it is somehow completely bogus). Why should he quit now, even if he truly believes that global warming is phony? He is getting money by defending that the earth is not facing global warming like the scientists and media project it to be... now, I am sure that the other side that supports global warming is getting someting out of it too... I am unsure about any details, and I am only speaking out of reasoning, but possibly the end of global warming ceases to exist when oil producers are finished? Perhaps global warming is propaganda... can this not all be realted to Nazi Germany? There are two sides to this, and it seems to be more political than scientific. I am sure a bribe can waffle and scientist's "research"...
In terms of battery technology, I think we're pretty darn close. A congressional physicist who specializes in batteries spoke to a class of mine last semester. She blames the paucity of battery powered vehicles upon a stubborn auto industry that resists change. Ironically, she is the wife of Dan Reifsnyder (the USA's representative during Kyoto talks). Her name escapes me at the moment.Mahon said:
M
Mahon
Guest
kentuckiense said:
It is a big issue because that is possibly what it is all about... I think if I were to compete for markets and enormous amounts of possible money, I would be cashing in on my "scientists", who are telling us and the media that global warming is occuring, and if we keep like this, this is the horrible picture will what earth will become... what are your opinions upon this? I do realize that politics influence almost everything, yet there must be some motive why there is an actual competition for acceptance of their global warming studies... I mean, we are competing for acceptance of our ideas right this very moment, while on other subjects, I would normally be more passive and silent... (?)
BTW, I don't ultimately expect you to believe what I believe... it is nearly impossible to convince someone to believe something, especially after they have defended it...
That is very interesting about Godin's Law...lol
-Pat
kentuckiense
Debaser
Do you honestly think that climate scientists are such a dishonest bunch that only those 29 would come forward? Even in their letter they mention nothing about "competing for markets" or money. They just object to the science. And what do you mean about competition for acceptance?Mahon said:
Good... I didn't want you to be let down.Mahon said:
kentuckiense
Debaser
I'm cross posting this and answering it here.
From what I understand to be a major theory, the ice age of 10,000 years ago was likely caused by a failure of the thermohaline cycle which was in turn caused by melting Greenland/Arctic ice. The melting occured do to an increased average global temperature due to a steady CO2 increase as illustrated in the Vostok ice cores.
And before you say that what we are experiencing now is just part of the same cycle, take note that current rates of CO2 and temperature increase are unprecidented in the Vostok cores.
Mahon said:
From what I understand to be a major theory, the ice age of 10,000 years ago was likely caused by a failure of the thermohaline cycle which was in turn caused by melting Greenland/Arctic ice. The melting occured do to an increased average global temperature due to a steady CO2 increase as illustrated in the Vostok ice cores.
And before you say that what we are experiencing now is just part of the same cycle, take note that current rates of CO2 and temperature increase are unprecidented in the Vostok cores.
M
Mahon
Guest
kentuckiense said:
I am not even going by that speech from Senator Inhofe... I am going by my ideas and reasoning... it stands to reason that there are two sides to this global warming theory, as both sides are benifiting from the "scientist's research"... otherwise, I don't see a reason not to agree to a single accepted theory unless there is somewhere competition and money involved...
I would hate to convince you to believe what I believe, then there is no fun in this debate
-Pat
kentuckiense
Debaser
This is true. The scientific community as a whole vs. politicians funded by oil money.Mahon said:
"IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
I still don't understand who you are trying to say is benefiting from research that agrees climate change is anthropomorphic. I'm going to go on MY ideas and reasoning... I don't think climate scientists are doing this for job security and I don't think the UN is trying to topple the United States economy. After all, almost everyone else(most notable exception is Australia) signed onto Kyoto.Mahon said:
kentuckiense
Debaser
It's 3:37a.m. so that means bed time for me.
M
Mahon
Guest
It's 3:46AM... definitely sleepy time... perhaps we can reach the goal of 20 pages?
-Pat
-Pat
