Oh yeah, the snowstorm in Missouri DID HAPPEN BONEHEAD!!!! I was there, I saw his shop and minimax bought him a brand new bandsaw, no cost to him. You are utterly stupid and senseless Eric, I feel so for anyone who knows you. God bless your family for what you've put them through. Good luck with the meds!
Eric, I too believe you are wrong. You have to back up what you say and you certainly haven't done that. Yes, there was a snowstorm last year in Missouri, as in 2007 if I remember right. It may have been late 2006, but I believe it was in 2007 (don't quote me, I don't personally live there). My uncle lives on the west side of the state and they got hit hard. With drifts, it was close to what the poster claimed. You are wrong on that account or your sources are, if you have any. The rest of it, I wouldn't have a clue.
Eric, I too believe you are wrong. You have to back up what you say and you certainly haven't done that. Yes, there was a snowstorm last year in Missouri, as in 2007 if I remember right. It may have been late 2006, but I believe it was in 2007 (don't quote me, I don't personally live there). My uncle lives on the west side of the state and they got hit hard. With drifts, it was close to what the poster claimed. You are wrong on that account or your sources are, if you have any. The rest of it, I wouldn't have a clue.
Sorry, I double clicked the Mr. Mouse and whammo, 2 identical consecutive posts. Sorry all.
Run for the sun, I stand corrected, you're right fuel cells don't emit any more water vapor than gasoline powered engines (in fact they emit less). A good discussion of this can be found here:
http://www.fuelcells.org/basics/faqs.html#holding
So my point about local humidity and air temperature is bogus and I have egg on my face.
However, that doesn't solve the energy inefficiency problem. Using conventional methods, natural gas is the best raw material for manufacturing H2 (not petroleum as I stated earlier - arguing on Letsrun can make you better informed as long as you're willing to wade through the abuse). But it still takes more energy to make the H2 than you get from it. Not only that, but the main byproduct of this method is CO2!
As you stated this problem could be eliminated by using solar energy to convert H2O to H2 and O2. While this sounds great there's three good reasons to not do it this way:
1. We don't even have the solar energy conversion capacity to power a decent sized town, it would take a large amount of time and money to create the capacity needed to power the US automotive fleet.
2. Assuming the first criticism is overcome, why bother with converting solar energy to electricity and then using the electricity to create hydrogen. Wouldn't it be simpler to just use the electricity?
3. Many parts of the country are already struggling with water supply issues. Wouldn't a scheme that converts water to hydrogen add to the problem?
As I said before, there are many less costly and more practical solutions to the coutry's energy problem.
Folks, there are really only two things you need to know about this thread:
1) It was started by luv2run. If you've ever read any of his posts, you'll know exactly where he stands on the political spectrum (to the extreme right).
2. He cited an article from CNS News. Careful now, not CBS News or CNN, but CNS. CNS is one of those crazy Fox-Wannabes. On their very own "about" page they decry the existence of so-called liberal media bias.
At this late stage of the game, given all of the research, observations, and investigations of a huge number of scientists, listening to the global warming denialists is like listening to a group of 400 pound humans with diabetes claim that an all-fudge diet is the healthiest thing going: It would be comical if it weren't so sad.
Hydrogen does not need to be extracted from fresh water. In Freeport, Texas, Dow has been powering its chlorine plant with fuel cell engines. The hydrogen is a byproduct of producing chlorine from sea water. And you don't need to drain the town reservoir to get decent quantities of hydrogen.
I said in my last post that a straight up electric battery is the better way to go for passenger vehicles. Israel is working to have 500,000 charging stations and 200 battery exchange stations ready by 2011. Renault will then sell a very cheap electric car to Israelis. Electric cars are affordable and ready for market. Hydrogen fuel cell cars are not. Technology may one day make hydrogen fuel cell cars practical, though.
For heavy equipment and transport, you do need fuel cells or hydrogen burning engines.
Whether it is a fuel cell or lithium ion battery, the carbon problem is not solved. It is just tranferred. You still have to produce energy to produce the hydrogen or charge the battery. If you use renewables (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal), you solve the carbon problem.
Cost effective? When you look at energy as simply another consumer product like tennis balls or candy bars, it is not cost effective. Coal, natural gas and oil will be more cost effective for quite a while until production of each peaks (in reverse order). But if you view energy as national security and a social issue, then the extra cost is hardly worth a thought. We can spend billions investing in a renewable energy infrastructure and have clean energy that will be there for generations. Or we can spend billions to keep our military engaged in the Middle East, pay billions in health care costs associated with burning fossil fuels (ever go for a run when there is an ozone alert?), and there are billions in environmental damage caused by fossil fuels (just today a tanker opened up and spilled piles of fuel in the Mississippi).
The cost comparison between renewables and fossil fuels just isn't a fair fight because the cost of the military, environment and health/safety (I forgot all the injuries to workers in the coal and oil industry) are not reflected in the price at the pump. If they were, renewables may very well be cost competitive.
And conservation must be part of the solution. Renewables cannot produce as much energy as oil, gas and coal. Thus, we cannot continue to be the energy pigs we are. Through strong conservation measures, the Japanese consume half the energy per capita than we do in the US. And the Japanese live well. There is no reason we can't do the same.
Massive public investment and extensive conservation could make it possible to convert to carbon free energy. But people have billions invested in the carbon energy market. They aren't going to give up their investments without a fight. However, after another more severe oil shock, people will start to see that there is no future in carbon.
Gore, nor practically anyone else, addresses the fundamental issue of global climate change and all other problems of environmental pollution and shortages of food and other resources. That is overpopulation.
The ONLY long-term solution is to reduce the population and maintain it at a level compatible with sustaining it on renewable resources. Of course that won't happen, so we face eventual annihilation of one sort or another because of it.
I would like to ask Mr. Gore if he became an environmentalist before or after he produced all those kids.
Jog City wrote:
Gore, nor practically anyone else, addresses the fundamental issue of global climate change and all other problems of environmental pollution and shortages of food and other resources. That is overpopulation.
The ONLY long-term solution is to reduce the population and maintain it at a level compatible with sustaining it on renewable resources. Of course that won't happen, so we face eventual annihilation of one sort or another because of it.
I would like to ask Mr. Gore if he became an environmentalist before or after he produced all those kids.
I'm not defending Gore, but if you did ask him, like everyone else, he would not see what your problem was with it.
Did you know that there's a town in Florida where you can fit twice the world's population? Did you also know that the entire world's population could fit into England (not Great Britain, England) with 20 square metres of space?
I'm sorry that you feel this way, but it's just not true.
You are correct, Missouri had a big snowstorm in late 2006. It dumped about 16 inches over mid-Missouri and slightly less in the western part of the state. However, this was not the largest snowfall I have witnessed here. Early 1982, part of Missouri found itself under 23 inches. It was one of the biggest snowfalls in Missouri history. Sixteen inches is far from 36. Even with heavy winds, it rarely will drift to 3 feet.
The poster originally said, "Missouri got three feet in one dump." This NEVER has happened. I gave you evidence to the contrary earlier.
I actually have provided national weather service data to prove that it didn't happen. You guys have not provided any real evidence. But I guess my sources on this is wrong, eh? I am supposed to believe anonymous posters who don't live in Missouri and can't manage to post any actual proof.
Again, I actually live in Missouri. You guys do not.
Gore????? I am going to call you out on this shit. Provide this evidence you keep ranting about. You keep telling us to research data from the 40s, 50s and 60s yet you don't post any information about what we should be looking for. You told me to research some guy named Steve C. and won't post his full name. You ask us to guess what your profession is. Fess up you idiot.
You are either a troll or a complete moron.
So here I'll post some more data. Good luck refuting it. Nothing here suggests that any recent year showed significant snowfall. Certainly not a 36 inch dump in 2006 or 2007 (especially when the yearly totals don't even match up to that amount):
Ranked Monthly Snowfalls in Columbia, MO (record 24.5" in 1960):
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/lsx/climate/cou/snow/snow_cou_most_snowiest_month.xls
Ranked Monthly Snowfalls in St. Louis, MO (record 28.8" in 1912):
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/lsx/climate/stl/snow/snow_stl_most_snowiest_month.xls
The year of 2006 had only 16.6" of snow Compared to the record set in 1960 of 49.4 2007 had 21":
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/lsx/climate/cou/snow/snow_cou_ranked_annual.xls
Annual Snowfall records for St. Louis:
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/lsx/climate/stl/snow/snow_stl_ranked_annual.xls
Kansas City Annual Snowfall rankings (a year in the 2000s doesn't appear until 35th on the list at 22.8" compared to the record in 1911 at 67")
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/eax/localclimate/seasrank/snowseason.php
And in case you were confused, those 16.6" and the 21" were totals for the entire years of 2006 and 2007 respectively.
I know nothing about global warming and won't argue it with you or anyone else.
But I am sorry to say that I still disagree Eric. Your facts are not for each and every location of Missouri and yes, drifts can add a foot or more and they are NOT documented unless they are extreme. You would have to have been where the poster said, exactly where he said. I googled the guys name for the fun of it and yes, there is a Steve C. who is a woodworker and lost his roof in 06/07. It took some digging, but I had some time last night and found it on a site called Woodcentral.com
The poster, Goreman(???), was not lying. I wasn't even going to post again until I happened upon it. It lead me to 2 other woodworking sites and the OP (Goreman?), was telling the truth. The one site actually had a fundraiser for the guy and a tool company did throw in a tool that he lost when his roof collapsed.
As far as global warming, you can all argue till the cows come home. I personally don't believe it, but I have nothing to back it up scientifically.
Carry on gentleman!
Mkj
p.s. Personally, I think you owe the guy an apology as far as the roof story and the snow goes. My wife and I found it in 15 minutes or so and again, he or she was telling the truth.
BostonSweetLou wrote:
al gore is doing nothing, he's like all other politicians. he isn't doing anything special.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_tale_two_houses.htm
Great article. Just goes to show what a realy hypocrite this guy is. If he's really into being green, why doesn't he get off his ass, put the cheeseburger down and try walking once in a while to loose some of that fat he's gained over the last few years. The man is fat. Has he ever heard of a bike? I bet the guy consums more energy having his fat ass carted around in jets and big suvs to lecture us on global warming. Maybe this guy should do a documentary on how many big macs and french fries he eats on a daily basis. Is he a windbag fat ass or what? Or maybe he can use one of those idiotic charts to show us how much weight he's gained while preaching to us about the "imminent" dangers of global warming.
BostonSweetLou wrote:
al gore is doing nothing, he's like all other politicians. he isn't doing anything special.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_tale_two_houses.htm
Great article. Just goes to show what a realy hypocrite this guy is. If he's really into being green, why doesn't he get off his ass, put the cheeseburger down and try walking once in a while to loose some of that fat he's gained over the last few years. The man is fat. Has he ever heard of a bike? I bet the guy consumes more energy having his fat ass carted around in jets and big suvs to lecture people about global warming. Maybe this guy should do a documentary on how many big macs and french fries he eats on a daily basis. He and that fat ass Michael Moore could do a joint venture. Is he a windbag fat ass or what? Or maybe he can use one of those idiotic charts to show us how much weight he's gained while preaching to us about the "imminent" dangers of global warming.
hh
If 98% of the ice in on land, then it will significantly impact the sea level...Yeah I'm not sure why people are talking about ice floating in water but the receeding ice sheets and glaciers are what will contribute to rising sea levels. And also not sure why anyone would try to pretend that the climate is not currently warming with all the accumulating evidence.
go Josh wrote:
Did you know that there's a town in Florida where you can fit twice the world's population? Did you also know that the entire world's population could fit into England (not Great Britain, England) with 20 square metres of space?
I'm sorry that you feel this way, but it's just not true.
What exactly are you trying to prove/disprove here? I think anyone older than, say, 7 would realize that overpopulation has nothing to do with the physical space that people actually occupy. If you gave everyone a 2'x2' square, it would take about 1000 square miles to fit them all in. Within a month 99% would probably be dead.
The question of overpopulation deals with balancing the population against the available resources and land needed to support the population. Throughout history, forces like disease and famine have limited the sizes of populations. Modern technology has largely neutralized these forces. The result is an ever increasing world population accompanied by an ever increasing reliance on the world's resources.
not in the debate, just wondering, i could never find a straight answer to this - do CO2 gases and other greenhouse gases eventually disappear from existence over time (assuming none are added)? I mean, if people totally stopped emitting gases, would we eventually have absolutely no CO2 in the atmosphere?
Please cite your sources.
I never said his friend's workshop didn't collapse from snow.
I was refuting his freak snowstorm "data." He was using this three foot snowfall (he originally said nothing about drifting) argument to speak out against global warming. I proved that he was wrong. End of discussion.
I found other examples of roofs caving in from snow from much earlier than 2006. It isn't a freak occurrence; it happens on occasion.
Again, his argument that these snowstorms were freak occurrences is bunk as the data I posted shows that snowfall did not increase over previous years.
Besides he still doesn't understand the concept of Global Warming. Ranting about one roof collapse in Missouri does nothing more to disprove Global Warming as pointing to an unseasonably warm November reaffirms it.
I owe him as much of an apology as he owes me.
MarathonMind wrote:
Yeah I'm not sure why people are talking about ice floating in water but the receeding ice sheets and glaciers are what will contribute to rising sea levels. And also not sure why anyone would try to pretend that the climate is not currently warming with all the accumulating evidence.
The bigger issue is whether or not people are contributing to it, not whether or not the planet is warming.
The problem for me is that I haven't seen reasonable evidence that humans are the cause of the global warming. Some of the other planets in our solar system are warming, and it has been proven that planets go through warmer periods and cooler periods. However, because we have wonderful politicians (on both sides of the walkway), one group is trying to increase taxes to prevent the planet from overheating. If nothing has been reasonably proven to be caused from humans, why should we bother to pay boatloads of money to fix it? Why spend money to fix something that can't be fixed?