SCI/TECH: Ancient fish pens confirm Sea Level Change

Originally posted by sardion2000
No I don't think it is normal electrolysys because I believe the reason it works so well is because of the Carbon electrodes decay, where the Carbon bonds to the Hydrogen and Oxigen making a very combustable combo. I dunno about the effiency but I'll try to get the answer myself cuz I don't necisarily believe it either.

I just caught on to that and came back to post about it.. I have in the past read of supposedly suppressed inventions that used powdered carbon and water to produce a combustable gas.. this is the route I'd go because of the impracticality of feeding a carbon rod. I may try this myself, actually. It looks interesting and while I initially question any undersupported claim to that kind of efficiency, I'd like to test it.

Originally posted by sardion2000
Anyway it should't be too hard to figure out how much power I get out versus how much I put in. If it is viable I will be reporting all my findings on ATS. Now all I need is a generator, because the construction phase of the AFG is about 3 hours...not even really.

Determining the total efficiency is actually gonna be kind of complicated.. You need to factor in input (air and electricity [in watts]), and work potential from heat and gas expansion. Not quite so simple.. Now if you can create a closed loop, it's an easy chore to see whether it is a continuous cycle or not.

Originally posted by sardion2000
EDIT: BTW Doesn't pure electrolysis produce pure hydrogen? Or does it have to go through another process to come up with H2?

So far as I know, plain electrolysis creates H2. Any contaminates in the water could create some odd gasses though. When I've done it in the past hardwater contaminates would stick to the electrodes and they'd turn black. I could imagine that producing a gaseous output other than O2 + H2.

My ideas for implementing this into a motor design probably differ from yours significantly. A typical turbine steam engine operates at 80% efficiency, and a Tesla turbine operates at 93% (Tesla claimed 97%) efficiency. Both gasoline and diesel engines are significantly lower than that. If you used the exhaust gas in a Tesla turbine and used the heat to boil some liquid, you'd be in energy efficiency heaven. The turbines could be used both for electricity generation and motive power. Combine that with technology like the continuously variable transmission and GM's aerofoil in the 108 mpg car (linked above). You'd still have CO2 emissions, but at an efficiency that makes it worthwhile.

Search more for Tesla turbines.. the link I gave above wasn't that great, I kind of just pulled that up as a first result. These things have been built and proven in modern times, you could make one in your garage that would power a car. I'm unable as of yet to find free plans, but the concept is so simple that it's trivial to think some up yourself.

Thanks a ton for pointing me to that, I've never heard of it. I searched for a while trying to find detracters and couldn't find any.

EDIT:
While it does produce more Carbon Dioxide than a gasoline combustion engine, it seems that it also produces seven times more Oxygen.. so, nevermind on that point.

[edit on 8/18/2004 by shbaz]

.....
Determining the total efficiency is actually gonna be kind of complicated.. You need to factor in input (air and electricity [in watts]), and work potential from heat and gas expansion. Not quite so simple.. Now if you can create a closed loop, it's an easy chore to see whether it is a continuous cycle or not.
.....

Umm well it won't be complicated for me since I have a friend who is a genius when it comes to this sort of thing. Plus I'm trying to get my friends Dad whos a Profesor of Geophysics at the University of Toronto his specialty is Isotopes so it's not really his specialty but I am seriously trying to persuade him to help me out a bit as well. He seemed mildy interested and he didn't outright dispute the Overunity claim which I find odd to say the least, I expected him to snort and dismiss the whole thing because he is a hardcore science type who is usually only interested in theories, experiments and debates.

.....
Search more for Tesla turbines....These things have been built and proven in modern times, you could make one in your garage that would power a car. I'm unable as of yet to find free plans, but the concept is so simple that it's trivial to think some up yourself.
.....

Yeah im doing research on Tesla right now, havn't got to Tesla turbines yet but I guess that's what I'm checking out next. Here is a site you might wanna check out if you don't know about it already www.amazing1.com... the guy who owns the company is certifiably insane but he seems to know a thing or too about inventing.

.....
Thanks a ton for pointing me to that, I've never heard of it. I searched for a while trying to find detracters and couldn't find any.
.....

No problem hope that carbon power idea works, but the problem with that is you gotta find a good way of getting them into the arc. Rods seem more convienent to me but you seem more experienced then I am so I wish you luck Keep us posted on your progress as well k.

While it does produce more Carbon Dioxide than a gasoline combustion engine, it seems that it also produces seven times more Oxygen.. so, nevermind on that point.

Yeah but how does it end up with twice as much O2 then there is in the Chem Analysis done by Nasa?

Originally posted by sardion2000
Here is an interesting story on how the Bush Admin is politizing science which is what is happening to the Global Warming "Debate":

With all due respect, I remember when "Global Warming" surfaced as a news darling. From DAY ONE it was a political topic, with so-called "researchers" immediately pointing the finger at human activity without anything to corroborate their claims.

It has been political since Day One, long before the Bush Administration, and the tradition continues right here, in this thread, with quotes such as those above proving my point.

I also remember the CFC-Ozone Layer scandal. Trillions of dollars have been made off that one. Nice way to fleece people for a fast buck, I suppose. And hey, CFCs are nasty anyway.

I'm not saying human activity has not had any effect on the global environment, but I get skeptical when the money trail always leads back to the same gang of usual suspects. Kyoto was a very nice way to redistribute money -- into the pockets of its proponents via third-world proxies.

Sure, this may seem politicized, but the real motive behind this, as in all such "sky is falling" schemes, is money.

Nothing new under the sun.

Originally posted by sardion2000
Yeah but how does it end up with twice as much O2 then there is in the Chem Analysis done by Nasa?

I don't know, I caught that from some data you posted in another topic, running some sort of engine..

EDITEDIT:
I think I might know, if he weren't able to completely do the reaction through the carbon tubes then there would be normal electrolysis, which would put out pure oxygen and pure hydrogen.. so it's a matter of contamination. This would also throw the results into a lower efficiency range because normal electrolysis isn't as efficient.

[edit on 8/18/2004 by shbaz]

Majik care to back up any of your "claims"? Who are these so called "usual suspects"?

Global Warming theories first originated in the 19th century and have been confirmed over and over again by NASA. Your whole post reeks of Conservative partisanship. And yes I know it has been politized from the start due to the Big Oil "enlightned self interest"

And where do you get off on questioning dangers of CFCs? It has also been proven time and time again that it was eating away at the ozone layer. Notice that when the ban came into effect the ozone holes started shrinking. Coincidance?

Originally posted by sardion2000
Here is another graph this is the controversial Hockey Stick. Notice the similarities to Howards graph? The only difference is it isn't zoomed in. Zoomed graphs can be very misleading. Ask anyone whos into Securities Trading.

True, graphs can be misleading, especially when compressed while covering a large span of data. You will note that Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which you posted is more compressed than the chart I created, giving a more dramatic rise to the vertical plane. And Mann's "hockey stick" is controversial indeed, as his work is now being seriously questioned by several groups of scientists and researchers from different parts of the globe with no relation to each other. The warmer medieval warm period did exist although Mann felt it advantageous to omit from his data. The debate goes on, but it's far from settled.

Regardless of Mann's efforts or possible agendas, I don't see how the chart that I posted is in any way "misleading". The data used is long established as acceptable data. There is nothing misleading about it. No correlation exists.

Even in the suspect "hockey stick" graph that you posted, a slight downward trend in GTA is noticed between the years 1000 and 1900.
This is happening during an alleged period of somewhat stable CO2 levels (according to various proxy data) up until a gradual incline around 1800. Yet the GTA doesn't take off until around 1900. I would like for you to explain that response.

sardion2000 said:
"I'll be checking Mr. Muller out. His site seems pretty good. Although I seem to remember that there is a PhD Muller that works for ExxonMobil that has been crusading against the environmentalist. Is this the same guy?"

Your inferred link between Exxon and Muller is fairly week. The only link between them that I can find is where both individually contributed with Caltech on a project pertaining to catalysis which had nothing to do with oil. Some instances even exist where Muller is referred to as an environmentalist and "global warming" alarmist.

sardion2000 said:
"I am an expert when it comes to Nanotech and you are completely wrong since all the emissions in a gas power nanotech car will be filtered out. Infact you wound't even need an exhaust pipe. Do your research, then come a talk to me."

I checked your links in the brief time I had. I found nothing relating to "filtering out" CO2. In fact, I know of no known way to filter out CO2. You can convert it into methane and other hydrocarbons, but you could never turn it into anything other than a carbon compound. If you filtered it, where would you then keep it? How and where would you empty the CO2 from the filter? Aside from that, you can talk to me when that "gas powered nanotech car" is a reality, and not a theory.

sardion2000 said:
"Do this experiment. Get a tank of pure CO2 .... and watch the greenhouse effect in action."

That's a grand case of comparing apples to oranges. You are talking about the difference between a small environment with 100% CO2 versus 0.038% irradiated by a 1KW lamp upon a confined area compared to the Sun's irradiance upon a large mass through a filtering, diffusing and circulating atmosphere.

For all practical purposes, the same warming inside the tank should have been noticed if water vapor were used in place of the CO2. Let's not forget that water vapor is 1100 to 1500 times more prevalent in the atmosphere and is almost twice as efficient at absorbing energy at infrared wavelengths than CO2.

sardion2000 said:
"Here is an interesting story on how the Bush Admin is politizing science which is what is happening to the Global Warming 'Debate'."

You must be referring in part to the section of the story which says, "In the first 20 months, a handful of petitions -- all from industry -- have been at least partly successful. In one, the Competitive Enterprise Institute had wording added to a multi-agency federal climate change report stating that the report's findings did not meet Data Quality Act standards."

In this case, I agree that the federal climate change report would not have met data quality standards. Of the numerous scientists and professionals who testified to Congress for the making of that report, several presented data which contradicted pro-"global warming" data. There was no consensus among those who testified, nor was there in the overall data that was presented.

While politicized science is a topic more suited for another thread, one can equally point a finger at liberal/green/socialist agendas for doing the same as well as perhaps doing it first.

As for your comments on peer review, it is known to come with abuses through bias. The Internet is loaded with complaints of such abuses. It appears that the process of peer review is under review itself.

Originally posted by sardion2000
Global Warming theories first originated in the 19th century and have been confirmed over and over again by NASA.

This just in: July 2004 was the second month in a row to exhibit a global average negative temperature anomaly in the lower troposphere.

Current decadal trend: +0.010�C

Data

And this just added:

Global cooling, everywhere
According to an analysis by scientists at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, July was the coldest worldwide since 1992. That year's cool spell was precipitated by the eruption of the Philippine volcano Pinatubo, which spewed 20 to 30 million tonnes of sunlight-deflecting dust into the atmosphere. But scientists don't know why the Earth's thermostat has dropped this year.

Story here.

It is interesting to note that whenever the global temperature trend takes a dip, most of the mainstream media will refer to this as natural variability if they even bother to mention it at all. But when the trend spikes upward, it's a "global warming" headline.

[edit on 18-8-2004 by Outland]

Hi,

My scientific knowledge has declined quite severely since high school and college, but I'll participate with the memories of conclusions I reached back in the day, which even then relied more on philosophy and common sense than any in depth scientific exploration.

I have seen the usual to and fro of graphs and arguments for and against the human impact on our planet's climate. It gladdens me that most people on this forum seem to be clean of the purely propaganda driven positioning on this matter, although I see it tainting at least one person.

The post that sparked me to share my thoughts is the one which started by berating the science of the original article, demanding solid proof rather than a statement of probability of human involvement.

Science is as much about probability as it is about solid proof. In fact if anything, it is more about probability since any truly honest scientist will admit that irrefutable proof is not really available to us.

Beyond the unreasonable stance of demanding irrefutable proof lie my philosophical musings on this matter. How can anyone justify not playing it safe?

We don't have any recorded history of past experiments with out biosphere, so we are in effect experimenting live with the organism which sustains us and all other Earthly creatures.
If you prick an amoeba enough times with a pin, it will die. There is no way of knowing for sure how many pin pricks it will take. Even after collecting the data from fifty thousand amoebas pricked to death in the name of science, you cannot predict how much a particular ameoba will be able to take.
We are pricking our planet with a pin (actually, we're experimenting with its well-being on so many levels simultaneously that this simplified analogy does not do the peril of the situation justice), and we haven't even got the benefit of any trial runs to give us a notion of what it can take before reacting violently. The only thing that remotely resembles a past track record lies in mythologies and legends from cultures around the globe, which retain what is likely to be the dim memory of cataclysmic flooding, lending steam to the possibility that we may have screwed up quite severely at least once before...

So my question is the following: is there ANY justification for not proceeding with the utmost caution? Our happiness does not depend on fossil fuels, after all, and as many have pointed out, the alternatives exist.

Thank you for your patience with a somewhat different, and less scientific post in your forum.

U.

Originally posted by sardion2000
Majik care to back up any of your "claims"? Who are these so called "usual suspects"?

I've said my peace, and you're free to disagree. The burden of proof in this case is yours -- not mine -- if you wish to change public policy, which is precisely what all this is about.

I came to ATS to examine unusual phenomena, not score points in the debate club, but when someone who is clearly pushing a political agenda points a hypocritical finger at someone else for doing the same thing, it's hard not to comment. The fact that I have posted on a clearly political topic is a failure on my part, not yours.

I was just addressing the obvious hypocrisy of your pointing the finger at the Bush administration for �politicizing global warming�. Right, like that�s something new. It is to laugh.

I'm not a stranger to this topic or the phenomenon behind it, just getting weary of the endless repetition with the passage of time. This is classic perception management. Follow the news back over the past several decades. There is always something like this to grab headlines and make a fast buck. With enough money, you can �prove� the earth is flat, if there�s a profit to be made.

I'm not here to prove anything to you or anyone else. Make of that what you will. However, if you really want to find the truth, rather than help others to fashion it to their own ends, follow the money.

Once you do that -- and it took me a good long time, I might add -- you will understand exactly who the "usual suspects" are, and who is pulling your strings. Or you can continue to carry their water for them. It matters not to me.

Hint: It�s the exact same people most self-styled �environmentalists� claim are �evil�, while simultaneously serving their interests. They fund the research directly (to show that they are good "corporate citizens") and through "green" front foundations. Those who profit from these scares -- and profit they most definitely do -- appreciate your support and its effect on their bottom lines. I can�t wait to see what they come up with next.

Originally posted by Outland
This just in: July 2004 was the second month in a row to exhibit a global average negative temperature anomaly in the lower troposphere.

Current decadal trend: +0.010�C

Data

And this just added:

Global cooling, everywhere
According to an analysis by scientists at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, July was the coldest worldwide since 1992. That year's cool spell was precipitated by the eruption of the Philippine volcano Pinatubo, which spewed 20 to 30 million tonnes of sunlight-deflecting dust into the atmosphere. But scientists don't know why the Earth's thermostat has dropped this year.

Story here.

It is interesting to note that whenever the global temperature trend takes a dip, most of the mainstream media will refer to this as natural variability if they even bother to mention it at all. But when the trend spikes upward, it's a "global warming" headline.

[edit on 18-8-2004 by Outland]

Thats just the thing. If you check some of my previous posts on other threads you will know what I think about the recent cooling trend. I'm just using Global Warming as a catchphrase. I guess I should use Human Influenced Climate Change instead. I see the current sudden regional cooling and regional drought and flood areas and forest fires that just seem to be getting worse(although this year wasn't as bad as last year) so have we reached glacial minimum yet? Are we close? Are we speeding up the natural process? Are we "pricking" the planet to death? These are all questions that must be answered and the better safe than sorry agenda is better then blindly running towards the cliffs like lemmings. Allthough Humanity has survived Ice Ages before is our modern society equipped to deal with continuing climate instability(And please do not say that was a good movie as I have never seen said Hollywood blockbuster because I knew they would distort the science..)

upuaut Thanks for the input, you analogies may be simplified but they are correct and CO2 emissions aren't the only problem we gotta worry about.

Majik since you have refused to add anything relevant to this thread other than making unsubstantiated claims and allegations why did you post? Was it because I brought up politics? Well I'm dropping politics for now and getting back to the data and if I am proven wrong I will admit it(but if I prove my case with data will you admit you are wrong?? How bout you Outland?). But it will be an uphill battle IMHO. And by the way I'm push an Sustainable Economical Agenga with a small bit of politics but in this day and age thats how change must happen.

Your inferred link between Exxon and Muller is fairly week. The only link between them that I can find is where both individually contributed with Caltech on a project pertaining to catalysis which had nothing to do with oil. Some instances even exist where Muller is referred to as an environmentalist and "global warming" alarmist.

I was just asking a question because the name rung a bell. I wasn't trying to hint at anything just asking an honest question.

Also did you hear we're gonna have another El-Nino winter? How often are these supposed to happen? I don't have too much time to link hunt right now but I'll be back you can count on it.

Originally posted by sardion2000
Majik since you have refused to add anything relevant to this thread other than making unsubstantiated claims and allegations why did you post? Was it because I brought up politics?

Precisely so. I am addressing the politics, first and foremost, more than the science. But in fairness, I recognize that, for a great many reasons, it is difficult to separate the two.

Please don't misunderstand when me I take exception to what I see as hypocrisy in the politics of the issue. The truth is that it is almost impossible to separate politics from science. They have forever been conjoined. That is because virtually all scientific research is funded by organizations with political interests.

Certainly, this is nothing new, but rather the status quo. Patrons pay those who deliver satisfying results, and those with nothing �good� to report go hungry.

I have nothing against you in general or personally (my impression of you is that you are sincere and do not wish to be someone�s patsy), and I most certainly have nothing against studies of climate -- even those with an agenda, because they all contribute useful information in some form or another. I am also in strong support of those whose true motive is a better environment for us all, a cause I believe in deeply, and have believed in deeply all my life.

Originally posted by sardion2000
Well I'm dropping politics for now and getting back to the data and if I am proven wrong I will admit it�

A commendable course of action, but I caution that it is much easier said than done, because all research is fueled by money, and precious little money comes with no strings attached. Anyone who has ever worked in a research department knows exactly what I'm talking about.

Since you have advocated that we take some course of action to change human behavior on the basis of global climate, you have already chosen a political position, so if you wish to assume a truly neutral stance politically, that necessarily means recanting that position -- at least while you wish to attempt political neutrality on the topic.

Just be mindful of where data comes from, and how it is presented. Be especially suspicious of data packaged with a political recommendation, however veiled -- the data is typically tailored to support it. There are not very many people left in the middle of this issue, and �objective research� is little more than a bitter oxymoron.

I myself try to be as open-minded as I can when considering the distinct issues of global climate change and the effects of human activities on global climate. However, my cynicism left over from previous studies of who is fueling the �environmental movement�, which I used to be a part of, will necessarily color my judgment. I�m not sure that�s a bad thing, however.

Originally posted by sardion2000
�but if I prove my case with data will you admit you are wrong??

I try not to be so foolish and heavy-headed as to not admit when I�m wrong. It serves no useful purpose, and I have been wrong far more in my life than I have been right. But let�s be clear regarding what I may or may not be wrong about.

Unless someone can somehow remarkably prove that what I have personally and repeatedly witnessed never really happened, then I�m not wrong about the relationship between politics, economics and science. That�s real enough.

My position on global warming and human effects on global warming, despite the appearance my surly assertions may give, is currently neutral. I simply don�t know, and it is presently impossible for me to see through the smokescreen of politics and money obscuring the truth of the matter. That, of course, does tend to make me a skeptic, but I am truly undecided on the underlying merits of the two distinct topics.

Compelling evidence, prepared with authentic scientific rigor, corroborated from many different sources of like kind and unaccompanied by political recommendations, will be most likely to sway my opinion one way or the other on the matter.

So if being undecided on the matter is somehow wrong (and I concede that it could be), I�ll be happy to admit as much when I do become decided.

Remember that there is a lot of money riding on this, and many big fish have already tooled up to profit from the inevitable �conclusions� that will be reached. The process is well underway.
But it�s not too late to seek the truth, if you can bear in mind that there�s a lot of different brands of truth on the market.

In any event, please accept my best wishes with my admonishments. This is a topic that is of importance to our entire species, and thus should not be left exclusively to the whims of politicians and corporate benefactors -- for whom genuine foresight tends to be a rarity, although getting useful information without them would be almost certainly impossible.

Good luck!


Edit: Pick an error, any error!



[edit on 8/18/2004 by Majic]

Don't have very much time now but I found an interesting article that might just settle the case of "Global Warming"... At least in a court of law. The states are targeting Big Coal in this legal claim. Don't know how significan't it is, but it could well end up in the Supreme Court.


www.christiansciencemonitor.com...

In midwinter, John Magnuson looks out his window across Wisconsin's Lake Mendota, hoping to see a swath of ice several miles long and a foot or more thick. But during several recent winters, all he saw was open water.

That's not how Wisconsin winters used to be - at least not according to 150 years of ice-cover data Dr. Magnuson, a university professor, has compiled on this seven-mile-long lake near Madison.

Lake Mendota was covered with ice four months of the year in the 1850s, compared with just 2.5 months today. Disappearing lake ice is a simple gauge widely considered among the clearest and most reliable scientific evidence that the planet is warming.

But would lake-ice data hold up, or melt, in a court of law?

An answer may come as soon as this fall as legions of scientists, possibly including Magnuson, are summoned to appear as expert witnesses in a groundbreaking case that will test the limits of environmental law and the science undergirding climate-change theory.

In a complaint filed last month in federal district court in New York, eight states (Wisconsin, Vermont, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Iowa, Connecticut, and California) claimed that global warming is damaging crops, tourism, beaches, citizens' health, forests, and fish - and threatening coastal communities as sea levels rise.

PS Still preparing my post Majic and thank you for your response you got a Way Above for that one I'll be responding somtime on Saturday.

Originally posted by sardion2000
Also did you hear we're gonna have another El-Nino winter? How often are these supposed to happen? I don't have too much time to link hunt right now but I'll be back you can count on it.

Apparently, they can come about every two years.. or at least, that's what may have happened in the past.

Story excerpts:

Scientists have found a unique record of past climates underneath a Northcote park, showing that our current pattern of alternating "El Nino" and "La Nina" weather may have switched on and off at roughly 10,000-year intervals.

A series of holes up to 61m deep drilled in the Onepoto Domain, near the Onewa Rd motorway turnoff, has found that the pattern of warm, wet "La Nina" years and cold, dry "El Nino" years switched on suddenly about 14,800 years ago.

Some time after that it switched off again, then switched on again between 4000 and 5000 years ago, and is continuing.

The oldest sampling taken from material laid down about 25,000 years ago showed consistent El Nino/La Nina fluctuations at intervals of around two and a half years - more like today's pattern.

...Dr Shulmeister's hunch is that the pattern might be switched on and off by the long-term Milankovitch Cycle - a gradual shift in the wobble of the Earth's rotation which tilts the Southern Hemisphere closer to the sun in summer and away from it in winter for about 10,000 years, and then swaps over for the next 10,000 years.

The theory that major clmate changes have more to do with Milankovitch cycles combined with long term changes in solar irradiance is gaining prominance world wide.

Lately, some scientists have tried to blame the El Nino cycles, or at least the apparent increased frequency of them on rising "greenhouse gases". However, the study above relegates that unfounded claim as the rubbish that it is.

However, the study above relegates that unfounded claim as the rubbish that it is.

Well I posted an article about a legal case not a scientific study and I was merely commenting that the case could be settled in the courts. Link hunting to support your 'theories' will always turn up links that appear to support your case. There is even an Anti-SolarPower movment for gods sake!(Now I would love to hear your arguments against solar)

Here is one more link so that you can education yourself(if your so inclined), and I know I was going to try to prove my case but as Lois Anderson once say "If they don't know, you can't tell em" or somthing along those lines. I will ask you one last question before I start ignoring this thread. Were you always skepical about Global Warming or did you read the Skepical Environmentalist and decide that Global Warming was all fluff just because of that book that was not peer reviewed?(Hmmm I'm beginning to see a pattern with the majority of Sun Induced global warming theories, and skeptical articles about Human Induced Climate Change)

daac.gsfc.nasa.gov...

And here is another site from NASA

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

PS One more question. If it is true as you say that the Sun is totally to blame for the current warming trend(And that it's a complete lie that methane CFCs CO2 and many other greenhouse gasses that Man has introduced into the atmosphere) then how do you explain the current cooling trend in the upper and lower atmosphere while most surface measurments have shown a slow a stead rise in temperatures(after they were plotted on a graph with a Moving Average overlay of course).
www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov...
gcmd.nasa.gov...
www.nature.com...
www.businessweek.com...

Edit: Added more links


[edit on 23-8-2004 by sardion2000]

Originally posted by sardion2000

Originally posted by Valhall
Is there any correlation between this and the "Dead Zone" changes that are occuring along the Oregon shelf?

www.cnn.com...

I wouldn't think so, because I seem to remember a news story or a thread I read somewhere stated the reason for the
so-called "Dead Zones" for being as big as they are, is that the Oceans have absorbed about half of all the CO2 we have
released into the atmosphere and the increase in CO2 in the Oceans is increasing their acidity.

I think the Dead Zones are from overfishing. Meanwhile, no-fishing zones such as the one around Cape Kennedy are actually repopulating areas around it, and the Bikini Atoll no-fishing zone where residual radioactivity locked back in by the environment is swarming with so many fish that biologists are going there to study them. Ironically, the places where humans cannot hunt or trespass because of their pollution of the environment, like Bikini Atoll, Chernobyl, and the reserve around Oak Ridge, Tenn., are teeming with life.

sardion2000 said:
"Were you always skepical about Global Warming or did you read the Skepical Environmentalist and decide that Global Warming was all fluff just because of that book that was not peer reviewed?(Hmmm I'm beginning to see a pattern with the majority of Sun Induced global warming theories, and skeptical articles about Human Induced Climate Change)"

Sorry, sardion2000. I won't follow suit on your efforts to turn a simple thread into a personal jousting match. That is not what this forum is for.

On second thought (pardon me one time, ATS), turnabout is fair play...

You posted a story and I posted a counter commentary backed with real data. You countered by practically dismissing charted data as "misleading" while posting charts yourself which weren't of your own origin and did not contradict the claim that I made based on publicly accessible data.

I waited for your big "Saturday post", but only a dribble appeared about some so-called PhD from the liberal land of Madison Wisconsin who intends to help testify in a court of law based on his comparatively short historical observations of a lake (that's "science"?). You posted two days later with little more than suspicions and wild and somewhat insulting conjecture about what I possibly read and that I need to "educate myself". You supplemented that last point with a link to a few web sites that describe much of the same tired hash that has been spoon fed to too many, much like yourself.

And still you can't, nor even try to, explain why the CO2 and GTA trends don't match. I added some support to my claim by presenting recent tropospheric temperature measurements indicating a global cooling trend for the previous 2.5 months despite CO2's steady climb. Instead of countering my ongoing claim of no correlation, you added more weight to my claim by asking:

"..then how do you explain the current cooling trend in the upper and lower atmosphere while most surface measurements have shown a slow a stead rise in temperatures.."

As most anyone who has been following the climate change debate in depth may know, one major weak link in the "global warming" scenario is that the troposphere must heat up in some relation to the surface temperatures. Why? Because all that nasty "greenhouse gas" is in the atmosphere (it's not glued to the Earth's surface) where it is alleged to trap heat. We know how the positive forcing of the suspected "enhanced greenhouse" effect is supposed to work, so why isn't it working? Officially, mid May through the end of July of this year has seen a negative GTA. Where is all that "trapped heat"? How did it escape with that massive 0.038% of CO2 in the atmosphere? The answer of "natural climate variability" equates to "I don't know" and lacks the required physical mechanics to explain it away.

Or is the surface temperature data as polluted with distortions from "heat island" effects as many claim they are? Never mind that weather stations situated in rural areas do not agree with the purported rate of increasing surface temps. That's just too inconvenient to explain away so those who live for doomsday scenarios simply ignore it.

You also assumed that my last post was about something you said, which it was not..

sardion2000 said:
"Well I posted an article about a legal case not a scientific study and I was merely commenting that the case could be settled in the courts."

When I referred to "the study above", I was referring to the study in the article which appeared directly above my comment. It clearly demonstrated that the recent claim of more frequent El Nino events being tied to increases in "greenhouse gases" is full of gas. On a related note...

Finally, I took up your invitation to check some of your previous posts. All I will say is, I'm not surprised that you're a fan of Coast to Coast. Combined with some of your other interests in fringe energy sciences, I don't see how you can justify repeatedly mentioning "peer review".

As for your comment on solar power....
Even Art Bell at one time uttered unfavorable words about his large investment in solar power.... one which he admitted to never being able to recover in his lifetime. Solar power has it's well-suited applications, but it's not ready for prime time as a 24/7 dependable source of energy for the masses of humanity.

Considerations for solar generated electricity via PV cells:
(1) PV cells are at best, about 38% efficient (exotic gallium based PV's) in full sunlight; (2) the prime, pure silicon that is required for the relatively poor performance is an expensive commodity these days which is why most PV cells are made of "seconds"; (3) toxic wastes are produced in the processing of silicon for these applications; (4) toxic substances are used in the batteries required to take over in low-light periods. These batteries have a limited life span and don't come cheap; (5) the required power inverters detract even more from efficiency; (6) providing power for everyone "on the grid" would use up excessive practical land space (poor area-to-output ratio and few regions offer sufficiently dependable sunlight); (7) does not answer the problem of one major polluter and oil user.. commercial aviation.

Considerations for solar generated electricity via heat/steam:
(1) Limited to regions where water is plentiful unless some energy is used for condensation units which then lowers efficiency. If the steam is released, then you are adding water vapor (a "greenhouse gas") to the atmosphere through an unnatural process of enhanced evaporation. Also, points (4), (5), (6) and (7) above.

Let's try hydrogen power (fuel cell or direct combustion):
(1) Excess energy required to derive H2 from H2O makes for an overall efficiency that is ridiculously low (>2kWh elctricity used to produce

Well all I got to say is that even the Bush Administration now believe Co2 is the reason for global warming here is the story. BTW This is the last time I'm replying to this thread cuz its sucking up way too much of my time.

U.S. Report Turns Focus to Greenhouse Gases

U.S. Report Turns Focus to Greenhouse Gases

In a striking shift in the way the Bush administration has portrayed the science of climate change, a new report to Congress focuses on federal research indicating that emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases are the only likely explanation for global warming over the last three decades.

In delivering the report to Congress yesterday, an administration official, Dr. James R Mahoney, said it reflected "the best possible scientific information" on climate change. Previously, President Bush and other officials had emphasized uncertainties in understanding the causes and consequences of warming as a reason for rejecting binding restrictions on heat-trapping gases.

The report is among those submitted regularly to Congress as a summary of recent and planned federal research on shifting global conditions of all sorts. It also says the accumulating emissions pose newly identified risks to farmers, citing studies showing that carbon dioxide promotes the growth of invasive weeds far more than it stimulates crops and that it reduces the nutritional value of some rangeland grasses.

American and international panels of experts concluded as early as 2001 that smokestack and tailpipe discharges of heat-trapping gases were the most likely cause of recent global warming. But the White House had disputed those conclusions.

Well It looks like Bush has done the Kerry flip-flop on this issue just in time for the elections. Seems like vote buying to me. but anyway ill let you digest this news.

www.enn.com...

PS. I didn't intentially try to turn this into a mud slinging match, I was just frustrated that in my mind you were denying the obvious. Well now that even Bush agrees with me I really see no need to continue the debate any longer. BTW I did enjoy our discussion/debate, it really passed the time(even when I was spitting mad at you ) Well have a good one.

[edit on 27-8-2004 by sardion2000]

sardion2000 said:
"Well all I got to say is that even the Bush Administration now believe Co2 is the reason for global warming here is the story."

The report, "Our Changing Planet", isn't much of an admission by the Bush Administration into believing that CO2 is the reason for global warming.

(Link to actual report and not a "news" story)

This report outlines the goals and supporting budget plans for the continuance of the Global Change Research Act of 1990, and the Climate Change Research Initiative, established by President Bush in 2001. Hardly can one say that the Bush administration is flip flopping if they are fulfilling acts that were passed 3 and 14 years ago.

Also, the report does not specifically say that "CO2 is the reason for global warming". In one instance, page 45 of the report says,

"However, there is as yet no direct evidence that greenhouse gas forcing, which drives the climate models, is responsible for the melting of sea ice and snow cover in the Arctic region. The data also show regional differences that suggest there are other influences in addition to global-scale climate warming."

An important point to understand here is the part about driving the climate models. This is the difference between "what if" (the model) and "what is" (reality). So far, the models mostly fail. The planet and everything on it has to deal with reality, not inaccurate models based on faulty theories. It is not correct to ponder why the Earth isn't behaving as the models say it should. It is instead correct to admit that the models are inaccurate and to ponder what information is missing in those models.

As for the report, it is essentially only an outlay for plans to perform more research based on what we supposedly know now. It is an admission of nothing. It is fully possible to overturn what we supposedly know now by doing that additional research.

I suggest that you actually read the original report instead of consistently relying on the spoon-fed media drek to form your conclusions for you. If one must "deny ignorance" (as well they should), that concept inherently entails the responsibility of doing your own research. If all we do is read the mass media news stories and believe that what we read is exactly so, then we are hardly "denying ignorance"... we are perpetuating it. One can regurgitate headlines all day long all over the internet, but Mat Drudge already does that. Uniqueness is worthy of praise. Repetition of the works of others is not.

Even a brief study of that report yields some inconsistencies worthy of suspicion. Page 47 shows a graph which includes "observed" global temperature anomalies between the years 1850 and 2000.

This chart is apparently using a temperature data series similar to the works of Dr. Michael Mann which is currently being disputed for gross inaccuracies of data and methodology. The previous work by Jones et al (which was oddly incorporated into Mann's work and then homogenized to fit) is the data I used in the chart I that posted in page 1 of this thread. Comparing the two, the entire GTA trend has magically been increased by 0.3�C!!! But no matter how they fudge the numbers, the "greenhouse gas" trend still shows no correlation.

What is worse is that the pre-1958 CO2 data (based on proxies from ice cores) may also be incorrect. If the assertions made by Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski are correct, atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the late 1800's were already on a fast growing trend and at higher levels than we were lead to believe. He claims that the data was arbitrarily adjusted to fit a more desired outcome.

You can believe or disbelieve accusations like those as you wish, but reports have been emerging that some researchers/scientists/etc. have had their data distorted or ignored if it wasn't in synch with theories of human induced climate change. There are claims of smear campaigns and researchers/scientists/etc. being told to rework their findings or find new data that supports the "global warming" scenario. However, one sees little motive to find or report accurate data when governments are handing out billions of dollars to say otherwise. If you are one of those researchers/scientists/etc., the only way to ensure a future income is to perpetuate a projection of doom, while also begging that it requires more research.