|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
01-15-2010, 07:34 PM
Quote:
The butterfly effect comparison to the theory of man made climate change is just that, a theory. Since the birth of the earth, weather has been ever changing. It is foolish to think that man can control global climate in any form. The facts that oil companies make a lot of profit (profit is not evil) and that cap and trade is about wealth redistribution and profit are mutually inclusive. Some of what you complain about has merit but has little to do with the man-made global warming theory. The hydrogen technology is simply too expensive and incomplete to be more efficient than these energy alternatives. Currently it takes 2.5 times as much energy to make a hydrogen fuel cell than is obtained from it during its service life. * hydrogen is not freely available * hydrogen is a gas at most temperatures, and particularly difficult to handle * hydrogen is more dangerous than most substances; equipment owned by consumers would have to be checked periodically * hydrogen production requires resources, and ultimately leads to energy loss. When it becomes cheaper to produce or use, then you can complain why the world isn't using it. "Gasoline, by comparison, requires less energy input, per gallon, at the refinery, and comparatively little energy is required to transport it and store it owing to its high energy density per gallon at ambient temperatures. Well-to-tank, the supply chain for gasoline is roughly 80 percent efficient. The most efficient distribution is electrical, which is typically 95% efficient. Electric vehicles are typically 3 to 4 times as efficient as hydrogen powered vehicles". Source: http://www.teslamotors.com/display_d...centurycar.pdf Okay people ABC Good Morning America has the solution: Take your cordless phone out of the cradle and let the battery dissipate, but don't unplug the charger. 'Just On Thing' on 'GMA': Green Your Home Phone - GMA Mentioned on Air 
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
01-15-2010, 10:31 PM
A few questions Daffy... You believe in the butterfly effect and that any tiny change is an important change, yet 1% of CO2 from volcanoes isn't an important enough number? And more importantly, you said climate is chaotic and unpredictable in anyway at all (which I agree with), yet you suggest that an increase in Greenhouse Gases implies Global Warming in "the long run"?
I've studied a lot about Chaos Theory, Butterfly effect etc from easy to see experiments like the double pendulum to more quantum related subjects with the atom in a box and Schrödinger equations; and I can safely say that you don't know what you're talking about by implying that you can use the chaos theory to say anything other than; Climate is a chaotic system... Anything beyond that about feedback, and long term blah blah blah is nonsense!! It's CHAOTIC!!! you can't tell whether its going forward or backward or whether it's going through a point of equilibrium or ANYTHING!!!... Now, please, sort out your grammar, because I do however think you bring interesting ideas to the discussion!
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
01-15-2010, 11:09 PM
Hi @all!!
all i wanna say is look here : Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! A big fake. theres no global warming. If my english is better i would write more  Sorry Strickmiez
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
01-16-2010, 02:08 AM
Quote:
If man is causing climate change, why is it so cold this year? Why was it so cold last year? Once again, the MET office predicted a "warm" winter, not the record-breaking cold winter that the world has experienced thus far. 2010 was predicted to be the warmest year in history, but that prediction has been thrown out the window. The mathematicians at the IPCC have used your "Chaos" theory in formulating their climate-change models. These models unanimously stated that the world should be getting warmer each year, when in fact, it has not. Siberian tree-ring data shows that there has been no global warming since 1961, and the scientists at East Anglia's CRU have admitted that fact to each other in the leaked emails. These scientists discussed methods on how to "hide the decline" in temperatures through truncating historical data, and cherry-picking weather stations in order to show an increase in global temperatures when there has been none. Rather than giving us a lesson on obscure mathematics which have so far only proven nothing, how about telling us why 2008, 2009, and 2010 are progressively colder when the precious math said it would be getting warmer. By the way, Exxon is a publicly traded company, so anyone who wants to can buy share in Exxon and get a piece of that $134k. And, what exactly does Exxon do with their money? Do they put it in a bag and bury it in a hole under the chimney? No, the money is spent on research and development, exploration, and infrastructure (paying engineers, scientists, and technicians), or is invested in funds which other companies can borrow from to do the same. These engineers, scientists, and technicians spend their Exxon pay buying homes, food, clothes, and everything else. You yourself, to some degree are benefiting from Exxon's profits. At least Exxon is able to earn a profit for it's workers, shareholders, and contractors. Do you think we should take the socialist approach and make Exxon a state company? How efficient is our government at their work? For each dollar they collect in taxes, they spend $5 or $6. Thanks, but no thanks.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
01-16-2010, 05:19 AM
I'm fine with him believeing Chaos theory..eventually he will stop believeing man causes global warming because chaos theory states he will. Once he joins the rest of us in understanding global cycles and Newtons laws of physics, everything will be ok.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
01-16-2010, 08:29 AM
Quote:
I know a bit about chaos theory, having read Lorenz and his discovery of it when using an old vacuum tube computer to make a self-contained weather environment. The problem with chaos is that one doesn't necessarily know the nature of strange attractors, and it's only after the fact that their net effect can be judged. The human influence could indeed do the opposite; increased Co2 increases plant life on the land and on the seas, which has the net effect of consuming Co2 at greater rate than would occur otherwise. The cycle could then reverse itself. Unfortunately, climate modelers who can only get government grants if they support the political ideology of climate change have had to skew their numbers in order to make the results of their models compatible what the policy makers demand. Chaos or no chaos, doctored facts in the formula result in a doctored outcome in the model. This is evident in that every climate model yet devised so far by the various scientists working for the IPCC has proven unreliable, even the most widely published one, which contains a margin of error of 600%. This model predicted temperature increases of 1 to 6 degrees over a century, but somehow was not able to predict the decline we are now experiencing. If global warming is not a farce, why is the world now facing one of the coldest winters in memory?
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
01-16-2010, 09:30 AM
Weather vs. Climate: Cold Winter Snap Does Not Mean No Global Warming - ABC News
Think Progress News Blog: Cold winter doesn't mean global warming is over Exceptionally cold and snowy winter does not mean global warming going away. - swissinfo Once Again, Cold Weather Doesn’t Disprove Global Warming | 80beats | Discover Magazine
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
01-16-2010, 11:48 AM
nice links MMM
=== i  the way people are talking about chaos theory as if it is just some theory?well to be fair it is, but it sits in the same league as gravity and relativity. so do i believe in it??? yes. i also believe in the sun, the moon and the existence of my own left hand.  just address a few things. man is the largest net producer of greenhouse gasses. the bit about hydrogen being expensive to make is complete bull, in terms of energy density, hydrogen tops hydrocarbons so far its not even funny. (a mass of hydrogen will release far more energy upon combustion than any other element) i again the way you say these hydrogens machines would need regular servicing as a problem,(what like an M.O.T?) oh and that transportation would be dangerous, no more so than petrol. and hydrogen engines are more inefficent and fuel cells make an overall energy loss? (i mean wtf!!!?) for a start, your comparing 1st generation prototype engines with 100+ generation hydrocarbon engines. if you compare gen 1 hydro to gen 1 carbon hydro wins hands down, there are so many more ways in which your wrong. but i have little time today. also those exxon figures are profits, so thats after they have paid engineers, drillers, funded exploration etc.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
01-16-2010, 12:31 PM
Quote:
But what I quoted got my interest. I'm interested in how you compare theories to the existence of your left hand, sun or moon. A theory is a theory, and is a piece of information that has not been confirmed by facts, or in many cases, has no solid backing to it. Thus giving a lot of room for failure. I'm not much acquainted with the chaos theory, but what I've read of it, that it's not near as solid as gravity (Which I may add is not as solid as a theory as people seem to think) or relativity. As a person, I don't believe in theories, nor do I disbelieve in them. Yet I never use them to try and prove an argument. Merely use it to show a different outlook on the topic. Never to use it as a main factor of your argument. For how solid an argument can you give, if the evidence you use is fallible? That's just me however. But the maim facts are there. Nature provides more CO2 than man ever will, yet we're the ones destroying the earth.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
