|
Post by jakesrocks on Apr 20, 2014 22:39:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Apr 20, 2014 22:51:02 GMT -5
<----------<<<
I know that was just a coincidence.
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Apr 20, 2014 23:24:36 GMT -5
They won't watch this either. If anyone could have benefited from the global warning propaganda. This man could have been really rich. So why did he quit a well established TV network. Could it be that he did not fall for the greens bullshit. Thanks Scott, here is one more for ya. I blame this one on man made global warming to, savanna's are drying up and the Mammals are cross breeding with the amphibians due to the 0.009% heat increase is affecting their natural mating hormones. Kinda like the boxer or brief argument.
|
|
halitedigger
starting to spend too much on rocks
Lost in the Mojave, Sierras or Itoigawa
Member since September 2013
Posts: 104
|
Post by halitedigger on Apr 21, 2014 0:48:15 GMT -5
Finally you guys decide to put up one of your scientists, albeit an Oil guy who moonlights as a "Climate Expert", but I'll bite. Sorry, had to skip the examiner article after being spammed with full screen ads despite my ad blocker. David Archibald, according to his bio, is an Oil CEO and has been in and out of Oil since his career began in 1979. He has a vested interest in denying AGW. Only in 2006 did he start "researching Climate Science". From there he begins to develop theories by cherry picking data sets, something conservatives constantly do in order to deliberately deceive the public because they know people won't do their due diligence and look into what they are saying. One of the scientists commenting on that article eviscerates everything he says. Archibald is a quack. False statements in this article: 1. "Naturally occurring greenhouse gases ensure that the planet is 30°C warmer than it would otherwise be if they were not in the atmosphere" False. The total greenhouse effect is more than 33°C, not 30°. 2. "so the average temperature of the planet’s surface is 15°C instead of -15°C." False. The non-greenhouse temperature is easily computed from the Stefan-Boltzmann Law at -18.4° (assuming a solar constant of 1364 W/m² and an albedo of 30%). 3. "Water vapor is responsible for 80 percent of that effect, and carbon dioxide for only 10 percent" False. Water vapor is 60% of the total greenhouse effect and CO2 is 26%. (Kiehl, J. T., & Trenberth, K. E. (1997). Earth's annual global mean energy budget. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 78(2), 197-208.) 4. "So the approximately 300 parts per million of carbon dioxide is good for 3°C degrees of warming." False. The 280 ppmv of pre-industrial CO2 is actually responsible for 33.4° x 26% = 8.7° of warming. Note how an accumulation of errors above -- all in the same direction -- leads to a nearly 3x underestimate of CO2's actual effect. 5. "The first 20 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere provides 1.6°C of warming, after which the effect drops away rapidly. From the current level of 400 parts per million, each addition of 100 parts per million adds only 0.1°C of warming." So utterly false one has to wonder from which non-peer-reviewed blog "scientist" he cribbed this nonsense. With a sensitivity of 2.8° per 3.7 W/m² the first 20 ppmv of CO2 adds about 3° of warming, and from the current level of 400 ppmv, each additional 100 ppmv adds 0.9°C of warming. 6. "By the time we have dug up all the rocks we can economically burn, and burned them, we may reach 600 parts per million in the atmosphere. So perhaps we might add another 0.2°C of warming over the next two centuries." Laughably false. You'd get more than that from proven reserves of coal alone, and that's not counting oil and natural gas. Burning all proven reserves of coal, oil, and gas (based on the figures in BP's 2013 annual report) would give you 4e11 tons of CO2, which is an additional 518 parts per million by volume of the atmosphere -- and that's ON TOP of the current 400. And since each 100 ppmv gives 0.9°C of warming, that's 4.7°C of warming -- more than 23 times greater than this innumerate author computes. Further, that also ignores possible long-term natural feedbacks in the carbon cycle, such as the melting of permafrost and releasing of methane clathrates on the Arctic Ocean floor that may well occur as the planet warms. 7. "The current Holocene interglacial period might last up to another 3,000 years before the Earth plunges into another glaciation." False. Without human intervention, the next ice age wouldn't happen for another 50,000 years. (Archer, D., & Ganopolski, A. (2005). A movable trigger: Fossil fuel CO2 and the onset of the next glaciation. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 6(5).) That's because ice ages and interglacials are triggered by small changes in Earth's orbit, and as it happens the orbit is becoming less eccentric and the obliquity is also becoming less. 8. "The flowering plants we rely upon in our diet evolved 100 million years ago when the carbon dioxide level was four times the current concentration." False. Flowering plants as a family first appeared 100 million years ago, but we don't eat pine trees. What we eat is grain, which are grasses, which didn't evolve until 10 to 15 million years ago -- the Middle Miocene, a period which began with a lowering of CO2 to roughly current levels and cooling of the planet. We're heading toward a climate vastly different that the one that any grains, any grasses, and any animal that eats grass (think cattle) has ever experienced. 9. "As the deep oceans turn over, on an eight-hundred-year cycle of circulation, they will take the carbon dioxide now in the atmosphere down into Davy Jones’s Locker, where it will be of no use to man, beast, or plant life." False. That ocean turnover is happening RIGHT NOW, and it always has been. If it had been able to vanish the CO2 that we create at anything like the rate we're creating it, we wouldn't be seeing the observed atmospheric increase in CO2. 10. "Agricultural productivity will rise for the next two centuries or so, along with the atmospheric carbon dioxide level, after which it will fall away." False. For most plants in most places, the limiting factors for growth are water, phosphorus, and nitrogen in that order. Not often will you find carbon being the bottleneck for plant growth, except in greenhouses. 11. "By the year 3000 AD, the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide level will be only a couple of percent higher than before the Industrial Revolution." False. Even if we only burn half of current fossil fuel reserves -- some 2000 gigatons -- CO2 would still stay above 400 ppmv for many thousands of years. (Archer, D. (2005). Fate of fossil fuel CO2 in geologic time. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans (1978–2012), 110(C9).) 12. "“Global warming” is an irrational belief whose proponents demonstrate no interest in examining scientific evidence that may prove their beliefs incorrect." False. I'm happy to examine any scientific evidence skeptics have. The problem is, they don't have much, and what they do have ranges from equivocal to supportive of the consensus. In fact, note that author David Archibald fails to cite even a single peer-reviewed reference in this disinformation piece. Mr. Archibald also fails to tell his readership that he has been CEO of an oil company. 12. "The fact that the world has not warmed since 1998 ..." False. The regression slope of global temperature since 1998 is +1.0°C per century. Positive. That trend is within the range expected from climate models. Next!
|
|
|
Post by mohs on Apr 21, 2014 1:29:19 GMT -5
it going to be a long hot summer .I can't have Ed with a broken heart! Ed you are the heart man for gawd sakes! Sorry my friend! But, please Ed. It's gonna be a long hot summer for you, precisely because you live in Phreekin' Phoenix! Of course it's gonna be long and hot! Well Scott you chose my least funny quote to quote I meant that metaphorically—heated topic w/ summer coming on Not wise Yes Phoenix is phreaking hot ! But I wouldn’t move Even if I had mor money If I was super rich-- I still wouldn’t Except during the damn long hot Phoenix summer Only broke fools hang around for that. The steer picture was taken personally by me Up in the cool mountains breezes of the Bradshaws That is one freaking funny picture Thanks mr. mohs very much Mostly
|
|
|
Post by mohs on Apr 21, 2014 1:31:41 GMT -5
|
|
droseraguy
Cave Dweller
Member since April 2012
Posts: 426
|
Post by droseraguy on Apr 21, 2014 8:29:17 GMT -5
I came across this guys website on global warming. At first look he seems to be legit. Dr Roy Spencer Ph.D. Worked with (not for apparently) NASA, NOAA and DOE. Disclaimer ! I haven't done any due diligence on him and just read the first few things on his site. He seems pretty smart to me ? Http://www.drroyspencer.com/There's another topic for discussion, I'm getting all veklempt . Global warming Scientists, they are neither Global nor Scientists (if they believe in Creation). Now talk amongst yourselves. Sorry for the bad SNL coffee talk reference but I couldn't stop myself.
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on Apr 21, 2014 9:52:42 GMT -5
Just another one the Libs won't read. It may interfere with their brain washed minds, and make them doubt all of the "scientific" propaganda they've been fed by the doom & gloom bunch of highly paid off "scientists".
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on Apr 21, 2014 9:53:44 GMT -5
Horny little critter, isn't he.
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Apr 21, 2014 11:40:25 GMT -5
“Disclaimer ! I haven't done any due diligence on him . . . “ No worries, mate. Jake just chimed in. That should be all you need to know. : )
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on Apr 21, 2014 11:55:54 GMT -5
“Disclaimer ! I haven't done any due diligence on him . . . “ No worries, mate. Jake just chimed in. That should be all you need to know. : )
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Apr 21, 2014 14:24:21 GMT -5
Yep! more green wasted on green!! Corn biofuels worse than gasoline on global warming in short term – study• $500,000 study paid for by federal government • Conclusion: 7% more greenhouse gases in early years Biofuels made from the leftovers of harvested corn plants are worse than gasoline for global warming in the short term, a new study shows, challenging the Obama administration's conclusions that they are a much cleaner oil alternative and will help combat climate change. A $500,000 study – paid for by the federal government and released Sunday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change – concludes that biofuels made with corn residue release 7% more greenhouse gases in the early years compared with conventional gasoline. While biofuels are better in the long run, the study says they won't meet a standard set in a 2007 energy law to qualify as renewable fuel. The conclusions deal a blow to proponents of cellulosic biofuels, which have received more than a billion dollars in federal support but have struggled to meet volume targets mandated by law. About half of the initial market in cellulosics is expected to be derived from corn residue. The biofuel industry and administration officials immediately criticised the research as flawed. They said it was too simplistic in its analysis of carbon loss from soil, which can vary over a single field, and vastly overestimated how much residue farmers actually would remove once the market gets underway. "The core analysis depicts an extreme scenario that no responsible farmer or business would ever employ because it would ruin both the land and the long-term supply of feedstock. It makes no agronomic or business sense," said Jan Koninckx, global business director for biorefineries at DuPont. Later this year the company is scheduled to finish a $200m-plus facility in Nevada, Iowa, that will produce 30 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol using corn residue from nearby farms. An assessment paid for by DuPont said that the ethanol it will produce there could be more than 100% better than gasoline in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. The research published in Nature Climate Change is among the first to attempt to quantify, over 12 corn belt states, how much carbon is lost to the atmosphere when the stalks, leaves and cobs that make up residue are removed and used to make biofuel, instead of left to naturally replenish the soil with carbon. The study found that regardless of how much corn residue is taken off the field, the process contributes to global warming. "I knew this research would be contentious," said Adam Liska, the lead author and an assistant professor of biological systems engineering at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. "I'm amazed it has not come out more solidly until now." The Environmental Protection Agency's own analysis, which assumed about half of corn residue would be removed from fields, found that fuel made from corn residue, also known as stover, would meet the standard in the energy law. That standard requires cellulosic biofuels to release 60% less carbon pollution than gasoline. Cellulosic biofuels that don't meet that threshold could be almost impossible to make and sell. Producers wouldn't earn the $1 per gallon subsidy they need to make these expensive fuels and make a profit. Refiners would shun the fuels because they wouldn't meet their legal obligation to use minimum amounts of next-generation biofuels. An EPA spokeswoman, Liz Purchia, said in a statement that the study "does not provide useful information relevant to the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from corn stover ethanol". But an AP investigation last year found that the EPA's analysis of corn-based ethanol failed to predict the environmental consequences accurately. The departments of Agriculture and Energy have initiated programmes with farmers to make sure residue is harvested sustainably. For instance, farmers will not receive any federal assistance for conservation programmes if too much corn residue is removed. A peer-reviewed study performed at the Energy Department's Argonne National Laboratory in 2012 found that biofuels made with corn residue were 95% better than gasoline in greenhouse gas emissions. That study assumed some of the residue harvested would replace power produced from coal, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it is unclear whether future biorefineries would do that. Liska agrees that using some of the residue to make electricity, or planting cover crops, would reduce carbon emissions. But he did not include those in his computer simulation. Still, corn residue is likely to be a big source early on for cellulosic biofuels, which have struggled to reach commercial scale. Last year, for the fifth time, the EPA proposed reducing the amount required by law. It set a target of 17 million gallons for 2014. The law envisioned 1.75 billion gallons being produced this year. "The study says it will be very hard to make a biofuel that has a better greenhouse gas impact than gasoline using corn residue," which puts it in the same boat as corn-based ethanol, said David Tilman, a professor at the University of Minnesota who has done research on biofuels' emissions from farm to tailpipe. Tilman said the new study was the best on the issue he had seen so far. www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/20/corn-biofuels-gasoline-global-warming
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Apr 21, 2014 15:19:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on Apr 21, 2014 15:39:17 GMT -5
Yup, thousands of acres of croplands around me in genetically altered corn and soy beans. All bound for the bio gas and bio diesel distilleries. And we're importing food crops. Sure makes good sense, doesn't it, that we should have to import food crops that we could be growing on that land. The farmers don't like it, but the federal government tells them what they are allowed to grow on their own land. If they don't grow frankencorn and frankensoy beans. They go without an income, go bankrupt and loose their land.
3 alcohol distilleries within 15 miles of me, all producing alcohol to be mixed with gas. This reduces the upper cylinder lubrication of car engines and shortens an engines life. In the meantime these same distilleries are spewing God knows what all sorts of pollutants from their exhaust stacks. They say it's nothing but water vapor, but water vapor wouldn't remain as a cloud spreading over the surrounding area 24 hours per day. Water vapor wouldn't have a smell to it. And lastly water droplets are heavy. They wouldn't remain floating over the land. On cold days they would quickly drop to the ground, and on hot days they would just as quickly evaporate. But this is clean energy, isn't it. My eyes must be telling me lies. That couldn't be pollutants floating in the air for miles around those "CLEAN ENERGY PRODUCING PLANTS".
And what about the thousands of acres of crop and graze land that those same distilleries took up to be built ? Food crops will never again be grown on that land. Cattle will never again graze on the natural native grass that grew on that land. A full section of land taken up by each of those distilleries, never again to produce what the people want and need. But I guess the federal government knows best. Lets buy up valuable crop land and cover it with pollutant spewing eyesores, all in the name of "CLEAN ENERGY". Let the people go hungry, or eat imported food crops. They need biogas more than they need food.
Another thing to consider. How much electricity does it take to keep those distilleries running 24 hours per day, 365 days per year? Is it really worth it? Does the "CLEAN ENERGY" alcohol produced by those distilleries really offset the added pollution produced by those dirty old coal burning generating plants to produce the extra power needed to keep the distilleries running 24/7/365 ?
I could go on for hours. Don't even get me started on wind farms. Another waste of money.
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Apr 21, 2014 16:49:43 GMT -5
Just read the first link. You really justified your belief that both sides of Gov. are pieces of shit not worth the bucket they crap in. Every President from Carter on up has had their grubbies in on this scam. Makes on think that 2016 is the right time for a Libertarian or Tea Party like Gov. I found this a little disturbing. Dwayne Andreas. Spooky Dude George
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on Apr 21, 2014 20:23:28 GMT -5
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Apr 22, 2014 13:21:08 GMT -5
When in doubt turn to Faux News. Like I said, I'll stick with the courts, law, science, peer reviewed papers, logic, etc. which is all on the left's side in every instance, that is until some tbaggers decide they are going to change the laws or the rules. The reason why those tbaggers want to get the land out of the Feds hands is so they can then sell it off to the Kochs and like so they can come in and frack it, grab the water, etc. A few state politicians are much easier to buy off than US Senators. If you thought rock collecting was tough under the BLM, wait until it is sold off to the Multinationals. Koch's vs Steyer All we ever hear from the left is that the evil Koch's did this, they are destroying that. Funny how the left hates big oil but are willing to take 100's of millions from a billionaire that made his fortune in the oilsands of Canada. Where is the F-head Harry Ried on this subject. Why is he not grand standing over Steyer's play to buy the WH? Speaking of conspicuous consumption, one-percenters and Wall Street banksters, another Goldman Sachs alumnus was in the news this week. His name is Tom Steyer, he's from San Francisco, and he makes Heyman look like a piker. This year alone Steyer promises to give or get $100 million for the Democrats - making him the largest single donor in America. Steyer is worth $1.4 billion, much of that made by investing in Canada's oilsands, including pipelines.But now that Steyer has made his fortune, he has decided he hates the oilsands, and pipelines, after all. His condition for giving his $100 million is that the Democrats stop the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. So, last week, Obama did. Naturally, Canada never stood a chance. Oh, you can't buy the president of the United States. But you can rent him. Barack Obama waited nine months before replacing the last US ambassador to Canada. The post was empty, and Obama just didn't care. He doesn't much like Stephen Harper - compare Obama's icy body language towards Harper, to Obama's deep bow when he met the Saudi king, or his high fives with the Hugo Chavez, the late ruler of Venezuela. Don't feel singled out. That's how Obama treats many of America's traditional allies. He spied on German Chancellor Angela Merkel's cellphone. The White House's bust of Winston Churchill was returned to the United Kingdom when Obama became president. Get used to it. Obama treats his friends worse than his enemies. You'd think a $600-billion-a-year trade relationship between Canada and the U.S. would warrant sending a new ambassador quickly. Apparently not. When Ottawa was finally blessed with Obama's choice this month, it was yet another Chicago crony capitalist - Bruce Heyman, a former Goldman Sachs banker who, together with his socialite wife, bundled $1.7 million for Obama's election campaign. That's what Obama thinks of the diplomatic corps: a reward for personal service, and an incentive to future donors. Stephen Harper should send Ambassador Heyman back to Washington to think things over. Heyman and Steyer are cut from the same cloth -- they even worked at the same bank at different times over the course of their careers. Steyer's vicious attack on Canada is done with the full support of Obama. Obviously Obama thinks we can do without Heyman for nine months. Maybe we can do without him for a few more. It's not the same as sending back a bust. But it would send a message: we've noticed Obama's contempt for Canada. And we're getting a bit sick of it.
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Apr 22, 2014 13:53:09 GMT -5
. . . and when he shits in the woods, Bushman, he makes sure there’s a maple tree handy.
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Apr 22, 2014 14:22:36 GMT -5
. . . and when he shits in the woods, Bushman, he makes sure there’s a maple tree handy. And may there be a Devils Club ready to spike his sorry ass.
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Apr 22, 2014 14:35:30 GMT -5
Get some sleep, Bushman. You’ll feel better in the morning.
|
|